home

The Future of Presidential Power

by TChris

The worst isn't that President Bush has acted beyond his power, in defiance of the Constitution, Paul Starr argues. The worst is that the president believes his power is limitless, and that Congress and the Supreme Court might join in his distorted view of our constitutional framework.

But there is something more dangerous than any of these specific abuses and usurpations, and that is the theory of inherent powers that Bush invokes to justify most of these actions and the possibility of its being effectively institutionalized by a meek Congress and, worst of all, by a deferential Supreme Court. ...

The real danger today is the loaded weapon that Bush and his defenders are willing to put in the hands of all future presidents. Even members of his own party ought to be able to see that danger, and act to stop it.

< Remember: Email is Forever | Scooter Libby Website >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joe Bob on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:13:23 PM EST
    Frankly, I don't think there are any principled conservatives, i.e.: believers in limited government, in the GOP anymore. 'Republican' and 'conservative' have come to mean different things. I don't think Republicans believe in anything more than the perpetuation of their own power. What's frightening is that they're acting like they will never be out of power. A simple thought experiment is this: take every power you're willing to give George W. Bush and imagine it in the hands of Hilary Clinton. Still okay with warrantless eavesdropping and the theory of the unitary executive then?

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#2)
    by aw on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    I think we're going to see some major realignments in political identification, less along regional lines. It's long past time for people to wake up to what's in their best interests and begin voting for it. They want a congress that will actually pull their weight for them.

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#3)
    by ltgesq on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:22:09 PM EST
    They aren't worried about that open weapon being handed to their political opponants. If the Clinton/jones case taught anything, it is that the law only is to be applied to presidents from the democratic party. The minute a democrat attempts to use the powers of the inperial presidency, he will be slapped down by the courts. Democrats wouldn't stand for it, and republicans only care about excessive executive power when it is weilded by a democrat. Bush has engaged in practices that make anything clinton might have been accused of seem quite quaint. The national press could care less. The New York Times has covered for the illegality of thsi administration for ages, the washington post is useless, and the news networks, well what can you say about that? Anyway, its pretty clear that these new rules are for republicans only, and the rest of us better damn well get used to them.

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:08:50 AM EST
    On a slight off topic but closely related note, we actually have some good news for a change. Perhaps people will start to slowly come to their senses now: One of the original architects of Neoconservatism has repudiated the doctrine and now says that it "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes". Francis Fukuyama, author of the book "The End of History", was one of the original PNAC signatories, and had signed PNAC letter along with William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld to Bill Clinton urging that the US increase efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Fukuyama now says that "the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time". He also now thinks that "the most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism" and that "advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq". He now thinks that Neocon ideology "has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda", and calls the movements' advocates "Leninists". The beginning of the great unravelling?

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:10:23 AM EST
    Here is the link to my source for the above post about Fukuyama.

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:14:42 AM EST
    Joe Bob - Repeat after me. Filegate,Travelgate, Whitewater, FuturesTradingGate... Glass houses and all that.

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:34:37 AM EST
    Joe Bob - Repeat after me. Filegate,Travelgate, Whitewater, FuturesTradingGate... Glass houses and all that.
    To use your favorite retort, PPJ, do you have PROOF of guilt in those "gates"? Because a $70m investigation by Ken Starr didn't find any. Yes, I know, I was going to ignore him, but just about everybody else seems to be succumbing to temptation.

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:49:38 AM EST
    aw, please don't feed the trools (and no, that is not a misspelling) ;-)

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:09:53 PM EST
    edger - You sly little dude, you. Do you have a commeht or are you still trying to live down:
    Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM ."..might consider, though, that the real villian is a MSM and the Far Left..." This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes... Jim... you know how to use a gun? Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em... You only need one, though...
    I guess troolish is as troolish does, eh? aw - I have about the same amount you have that Gore won FL. My point was simple. Both the Demos and the Repubs can not be trusted. As soon as you have that concept down let me know and we can have a conversation.

    Re: The Future of Presidential Power (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:19:24 AM EST
    Bush has acted beyond his power, in defiance of the Constitution In one of the segments of Constitutional Law that I teach, I asked my students whether the Constitution had any legitimacy. "On what basis does the United States government presume to rule you?," I rephrased the question. This question took us into a discussion of the subject of "authority." During the course of this discussion, a young man began to ask a series of questions: "But how else are we going to live, if we don't follow others [i.e., authorities]?" "Do you understand how allowing others to direct your thinking and your actions produces conflict within yourself?", I asked. "Yes, I think so," the young man responded. "Would you like to learn how to live your life in a more self-directed way, without relying on 'authorities' to tell you how to do so?", I inquired. "Yes," my student answered. "How will you find out?", I asked. "By asking you," he replied. "Let me make certain I understand you: are you saying that you are now aware of how you have allowed others to control your thinking and actions by accepting these people as 'authorities' over you?" "Yes," he responded. "And now you are asking me to tell you how to stop living this way and take control over your own life? Can I make you a self-directed person?" There was a long silence, during which one could almost see what was going on in this man's mind. Finally he declared: "I guess this means that it's up to each one of us, doesn't it?" "Do you need me to answer this question for you?", I asked. "No," my student answered.