Help on US constitution stuff.

[chickenfeet]

President Bush has admitted to an extensive program of wiretap surveillance in the US. Many commentators have argued that this is unconstitutional and, therefore, presumably, illegal.

So what happens now? Normally the courts are the guardians of the constitution in the US but I'm not aware of any mechanism by which a case could be brought in a case like this.

The Senate (I think it's the Senate) could impeach him but no-one would expect the Senate to make its decision on legal and constitutional grounds. It would inevitably be a political decision based on the perceived merits or otherwise of the President's actions. This would pretty much negate the idea that, in part at least, the constitution exists to protect the individual from the tyranny of short term majorities.

In any event, doesn't a Bill of Impeachment require a two thirds majority? In which case the President plus 34 senators can break the constitution with impunity. Am I missing something here?

Please note, I'm not asking people to argue the political or constitutional case for or against wiretapping. The question I am interested in is "what redress is possible against a President who breaks the constitution?".

Comments

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

But, and here's the rub, there's no way of testing it in the courts and if the only test is whether Congress finds it politically acceptable there's not much point in having a constitution.

[a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's true. I have a vague, but possibly correct, impression that someone could file an amicus brief -- the problem is that I don't know that that could be done when someone is in office ...