|
|
Bush Postpones 2008 Election
Stephen Gillers
Cites Constitutional Power to Protect Nation's Security
WASHINGTON,
November 1, 2008. President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief
of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs, today
ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order "to protect
the American people in our war on terror."
In a speech during a surprise
visit to Baghdad, where he celebrated the summer solstice with the troops, Mr. Bush
told the nation that the election will be "rescheduled as soon as a change in
leadership does not create a security threat and not a second later. When the Iraqis
stand up, we'll vote."
"Elections are important," the President
acknowledged. "I know that. I believe in elections. I'm President because of
an election, sort of. But protecting the nation from another 9/11 is more important
than holding an election precisely on time."
The President noted that
as Commander in Chief he had already approved telephone wiretapping without court
warrant, incarcerated alleged "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial
and, in a February 2002 order, now rescinded, had authorized the armed forces to
ignore the Geneva Conventions when "consistent with military necessity,"
so long as everyone was treated "humanely."
"If I can do
all that, I can defer an election," the President said. "Look, as between
not voting on time and getting locked up without all those Geneva rules and such,
which is worse?"
In a Washington press conference following the President's
speech, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out the legal basis for his department's
conclusion that the President could postpone the election.
"Legally,
it's simple," Mr. Gonzales said. "It depends on what the meaning of 'four
years' is. The Constitution says the President 'shall hold his office during the
term of four years.' It does not say 'only four years' or 'four years and not a day
more.' The Framers intended 'four years' to be a preference, not a rigid number.
We should not take it literally any more than the words 'hold his office' means no
woman can be President. A woman is running now.
"Time meant something
different in 1789," Mr. Gonzales added. "This was before airline schedules
and self-winding watches. People didn't run their lives by the clock. Many Americans
didn't have clocks."
In a speech on the Senate floor, Joseph Lieberman
(IND-Conn.) supported the President's decision. "While I do not believe we should
lightly suspend the exercise of the franchise," he said, "protection of
the nation cannot be and must not be a partisan issue. As Americans, we can all agree
that security is the most important job of a President. We can have a country without
an election, but we cannot have an election without a country. It's as simple as
that."
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the likely Democratic
nominee, had no immediate comment, but her office said she will hold a news conference
following the results of early polling. A spokesperson for her campaign, granted
anonymity because she was not authorized to speak to the press about anything, said
the senator "is absolutely opposed to postponing the election as such, but she
is amenable to rescheduling the day designated for the actual vote. There is a difference."
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he
was "troubled" that he had not been consulted on the President's decision.
He vowed to "hold hearings following the day that should have been election
day if I am chairman of the committee at that time. Unfortunately, we're backlogged
on judicial nominations at the moment, and then there's the summer recess. People
have plans and nonrefundable tickets."
At his press conference, Mr.
Gonzales denied that the Supreme Court's 2006 rejection of military tribunals meant
that the President could not delay an election. That decision, known as Hamdan, rested
on federal statutes and the Geneva Accords. "Hamdan was about trials, not voting,"
he explained. "Geneva doesn't apply to voting. It's a mistake to confuse the
two."
Asked if he expected a court challenge to the President's decision,
Mr. Gonzales said he was "resigned to the prospect that some may cynically try
to use this for their own political advantage." But he added that he was "confident
that if the case reaches the Supreme Court,
five Justices will agree with our
interpretation of 'four years.'"
