Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Los Angeles Times
January 23, 2008 By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
The California Coastal Commission argued in federal court Tuesday that President Bush violated the U.S. Constitution by trying to overturn a court order that restricted the Navy's use of a type of sonar linked to the deaths of marine mammals.
The commission's attorneys said Bush's move to exempt the Navy sonar training exercises in Southern California waters from federal law violated the Constitution's separation-of-powers doctrine.
"The notion that the president can act like some medieval autocrat and impose the law as he sees it violates the fundamental basis of the American Constitution," said Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, whose staff lawyers represent the commission. "There are three branches of government. Each of the branches has to be respected."
President Bush issued an order last week that tried to overturn a ruling by a federal judge in Los Angeles who had directed the Navy to avoid conducting its sonar exercises within 12 miles of the coast and in the area between Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands, places where whales and dolphins are abundant.
The president justified his decision as a matter of national security, saying it was of paramount interest for the United States to train sailors to use mid-frequency active sonar to hunt for quiet diesel-electric submarines operated by potentially hostile countries in areas such as the Persian Gulf.
But Bush provided only a "cursory basis" for his decision and did not provide an explanation from the Secretary of Commerce, as required for an exemption to the Coastal Zone Management Act, the state attorney general's office argued.
Without such an explanation, Bush seems to be countermanding a judicial opinion simply because he does not agree with it, the court papers argue.
"He can appeal it," Brown said. "He can appeal it twice, to the [U.S.] Supreme Court. . . . But he cannot say he's above the law and invoke the idea of national security and do whatever he wants."
A U.S. Justice Department lawyer handling the case for the president and the Navy declined to comment. So did Navy Cmdr. Jeff Davis, who said Navy lawyers would respond in court Friday.
Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law school professor, said the Coastal Commission had raised a provocative argument that he expected to have ramifications on future conflicts that arise between national security and environmental protections.
"It's totally uncharted territory," Tobias said.
Tobias said Bush did not seek the exemption until after a court had weighed the government's national security arguments and ruled that some environmental protections nonetheless were warranted.
Peter Douglas, executive director of the Coastal Commission, said his agency wasn't seeking to set constitutional precedent but to do its job of protecting coastal and marine resources.
"The commission is doing this because we feel so strong that the commission action allows the Navy to conduct its exercises while providing reasonable protections to marine mammals," Douglas said.
January 23, 2008 By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
The California Coastal Commission argued in federal court Tuesday that President Bush violated the U.S. Constitution by trying to overturn a court order that restricted the Navy's use of a type of sonar linked to the deaths of marine mammals.
The commission's attorneys said Bush's move to exempt the Navy sonar training exercises in Southern California waters from federal law violated the Constitution's separation-of-powers doctrine.
"The notion that the president can act like some medieval autocrat and impose the law as he sees it violates the fundamental basis of the American Constitution," said Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, whose staff lawyers represent the commission. "There are three branches of government. Each of the branches has to be respected."
President Bush issued an order last week that tried to overturn a ruling by a federal judge in Los Angeles who had directed the Navy to avoid conducting its sonar exercises within 12 miles of the coast and in the area between Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands, places where whales and dolphins are abundant.
The president justified his decision as a matter of national security, saying it was of paramount interest for the United States to train sailors to use mid-frequency active sonar to hunt for quiet diesel-electric submarines operated by potentially hostile countries in areas such as the Persian Gulf.
But Bush provided only a "cursory basis" for his decision and did not provide an explanation from the Secretary of Commerce, as required for an exemption to the Coastal Zone Management Act, the state attorney general's office argued.
Without such an explanation, Bush seems to be countermanding a judicial opinion simply because he does not agree with it, the court papers argue.
"He can appeal it," Brown said. "He can appeal it twice, to the [U.S.] Supreme Court. . . . But he cannot say he's above the law and invoke the idea of national security and do whatever he wants."
A U.S. Justice Department lawyer handling the case for the president and the Navy declined to comment. So did Navy Cmdr. Jeff Davis, who said Navy lawyers would respond in court Friday.
Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law school professor, said the Coastal Commission had raised a provocative argument that he expected to have ramifications on future conflicts that arise between national security and environmental protections.
"It's totally uncharted territory," Tobias said.
Tobias said Bush did not seek the exemption until after a court had weighed the government's national security arguments and ruled that some environmental protections nonetheless were warranted.
Peter Douglas, executive director of the Coastal Commission, said his agency wasn't seeking to set constitutional precedent but to do its job of protecting coastal and marine resources.
"The commission is doing this because we feel so strong that the commission action allows the Navy to conduct its exercises while providing reasonable protections to marine mammals," Douglas said.