EDITOR: The most important information is often buried far down in an article. Perhaps the editors don’t want to seem partisan.
NEW YORK TIMES: ….But the administration is also arguing that its interpretation of the law is reasonable because the alternative view — that the law contains no unwritten exceptions — could render the statute unconstitutional as applied to a situation like the Bergdahl deal.
“In these circumstances, delaying the transfer in order to provide the 30-day notice would interfere with the executive’s performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the president: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. soldiers,” Ms. Hayden said, adding that doing so could raise “constitutional concerns.”
The implication of her statement, legal specialists said, is that if the law does not contain an exception for circumstances like the Bergdahl deal, it would infringe on the president’s commander in chief powers, suggesting he could lawfully override it anyway. To avoid that sort of conflict, it is better to interpret the statute as allowing exceptions… (more)
Interesting viewpoint. If a law interferes with another branch of government, rather than having in reviewed by the judiciary, it may be ignored. Nixon was right, if the president does it, it cannot be against the law.
EDITOR: I also thought of the Nixon quote. But when a statue runs up against the Constitution, it is the Constitution that prevails.
The article suggests that Barack Obama prefers not to have to formally make that argument because of its precedent setting nature. But it is the back bone of the contention that the President is free to act where a statute has not provided for a situation.
The second heard about the statute, the question jumped to my mind of how it could be constitutional, given that the President is also Commander in Chief. Trading prisoners seems like a war issue.