Separation Of Powers Questions
This is a reader-participation sort of a column. In fact, it's not really a column at all, instead just trolling for comments from you folks. Just to warn everyone up front.
While I am finally (finally!) approaching the end of my own writing project (at least until I have a book contract to finish it), I have been approached by a student who is working on a scholastic writing project on the subject of American government. This student has asked a few questions that pertain to the power of the American president, and the nature of such power as it relates to the other branches of government.
These are not political questions, really, but more historic and philosophical questions on the way the American government works. I'll be working on answering them over the weekend, but I thought it would be worthwhile to hear a variety of responses, so I'm tossing the questions out to you folks to see what you think.
There are a number of ways to answer these, from factual and legalistic to more gut-feeling "the way things are supposed to work" governmental philosophy. So, before I tackle them on my own, see how you would answer the following:
(1.) It has been argued that the president has become too powerful over the years despite the checks carried out by the other branches, do you think that this is indeed the case?
(2.) In your opinion, is it fair to say that after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush started to take a firmer stand in terms of his role as Commander in Chief?
(3.) In your opinion, should a president indeed be given the sole authority to deploy troops and allow for military action without consent from Congress?
(4.) Do you think that there is the possibility of President Obama exploiting his use of presidential powers more in his second term?
(5.) The separation of powers gives Congress the authority to overturn a presidential veto. What is your opinion in terms of allowing the president the authority of the veto in the first place?
I will be very interested to hear everyone's answer, especially seeing as how a number of these could be taken in more than one way.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
speaking as someone who teaches this to young students on a daily basis, i wouldn't necessarily share all of this with a student unless i'd thoroughly disclaimed it as only one man's opinion, not the "right answer."
1. yes, the power of the executive has grown. in my view, this is partly the result of technology and media, partly due to our chief executive and head of state roles being held by the same person (many democracies have both a president and a prime minister to divide the leadership duties). jackson was able to defy the supreme court because he was too popular to impeach; bush or obama just have to cook up some cockamamie legal theory and flood the airwaves with it. the bully pulpit spans the globe. the power to declare war is practically irrelevant due to the speed of communication, airplanes and missiles. i could write a dissertation on this question alone.
2. not really. i don't think bush changed his stance toward the CinC role, he just found a good avenue for a policy he and his advisors had dreamed up years prior, with the goal of democratizing the middle-east.
3. yes. as imperfect as the system is, when response time needs to be instant i'd rather have one person responsible than a hundred. hopefully congress remains impartial enough to check that power when necessary.
4. yes, it's definitely possible since he no longer has to worry about his prospects for re-election. whether he will exploit those powers for good or ill, and to what extent, remains to be seen. the right tends to wax apoplectic whenever he flexes his executive muscles even slightly, while the left at times seem oblivious to any possible overreach, because he's "their guy." i'd suggest that students try to dial back their emotions and compare obama's actions to those of other presidents. bush set many precedents for use of presidential power, and obama seems to be emulating bush's use of power fairly closely.
5. i think the veto serves a worthwhile purpose as a check on the legislative branch. especially in the murky world of lobbying and campaign finance, it's very possible for something truly awful to get passed (see sopa/pipa). sometimes it does anyway (see dmca). a veto threat provides a bottom line for legislation to do something useful, while the override stops it from being used as a blunt instrument on all legislation (as is the current status of the filibuster).
~joshua
(1) is actually the toughest question for me so I'm going to come back to that one.
(2) Absolutely. War, if i remember correctly, was never declared against Afghanistan. In the authorization to use military force act, Republicans pushed through legislation which basically gave the president a blank check to bypass congress. Cheney's position at the time was something along the lines of "if there was a 1 percent chance that someone might be a terrorist, we have to treat it as a certainty". This was a huge change in our foreign policy approach from our previous position of not using force unless attacked. Basically, if we could drum up any suspicion whatsoever, force could be justified by Cheney's philosophy. This lead directly to attacking Iraq based on flimsy (if any) actual evidence of a real terrorist threat.
(3) This is a tricky question as I notice you omit the term 'war'. Only Congress has the right to declare war. Afghanistan was a war. Iraq was a war. Vietnam was a war. Korea was a war. None of these were authorized by Congress. I think the term 'military action' needs better definition.
(4) During his first term, I saw the President as much more respectful of the balance of power than his predecessor. One, the President hasn't sought to increase his power in the way Bush did with the terrorist act. And he hasn't issued nearly as many signing statements as his predecessor either. I see this trend continuing. In historical terms, under Obama, the Senate has abused their filibuster check more than anything else.
(5) Historically, I think the veto has worked pretty well as a check. The way its designed, both Congress and the President much negotiate in order to get anything passed and this is the whole point. If a President uses the veto too much, this will likely become unpopular as well as increase the odds that its overwritten. Similarly, the President's power is limited because the veto only applies to an entire bill. Not certain items within a bill. The veto is imperfect sure, but in terms of balance it seems like its worked pretty well.
Ok, now a not so quick note on number 1. I would say this is the wrong question to be ask. If you step outside the 3 branches of government frame and think more about concentrated power in general, the real issue is not that power has become over concentrated in any one branch of government, but that power has become concentrated in a small group of wealthy individuals (represented by the US Chamber of Commerce - not a government agency - and channeled through lobbyists) exerting undue influence on all 3 branches of government. This group was held in check for a long time by the media until relatively recently when corporate consolidation and a targeted anti-media marketing campaign neutered much of the 4th estate.
Please note, most of this is off the top of my head so please remember you heard it on the Internet. It's meant more to stimulate thought than to be a fully researched paper. If I were writing a paper I would spend more time verifying and building my argument.
And I'm as interested as you to hear everyone else's take!
-David
God ... I really need a proof reader
"Overwritten" = "overridden"
#5 "both Congress and the President must negotiate
"wrong question to ask" or "wrong question to be asking"
1. No. Unequivocally. The growth of Presidential power is a partisan (both parties, depending on who's in power) myth. The Bush administration was able to do whatever they chose because they had the Republican Congress in their back-pocket
The minority was able to completely block the Obama administration for two years without having control of either half of Congress. The signature achievement of the Obama administration during that time was a minority proposal, the ACA, of which Obama didn't obtain "ownership," until after its passage.
Congress in modern times has been mandating more and more direct oversight and control of the administration of federal policies instead of being limited to "the power of the purse." If anything Presidential power has been decreasing. If not, its certainly not for lack of Congress trying!
2.) Of course he did. Anyone would have. Its part "closing the barn door after the horses have gone" and part prioritization. Whatever may have been on the President's plate, when America is attacked, his role as Commander in Chief becomes the overriding priority, without qualification. Always has. Always will.
3.) The President has always had that authority. The reason we have a Chief Executive and Commander In Chief is that the founders recognized that you cannot effectively manage day-to-day operations by committee. And you certainly don't wait on a committee consensus to respond to developing military situations. Particularly when our legislative branch has been intentionally designed to be inefficient as one of those "checks and balances" on potential government abuse of power.
Only Congress has the authority to declare war. But there is a huge difference between declaring war and fighting military battles. Much like the difference between administering day-to-day operations, including establishing policy, and legislating statutes.
4.) There's a strong probability that Obama will. All politicians are more prone to exercise their powers as lame ducks. They are simply no longer subject to any real personal repercussions for doing so. And they, of course, know it. So they enjoy much more freedom of action. The complete failure to achieve any compromise or common ground with the minority, no matter what was tried, in his first term, can only increase the likelihood that Obama will do so.
5.) Its essential to our government. A fact never more apparent than now. The idea is that two of three branches must agree, unless the overwhelming majority of the most conservative half of Congress as well as the majority of the most populous half both disagree with the President.
In other words the Constitution enforces the need for consensus in our legislative process. The kind of "rule-mechanics" who've recently enabled the minority to thwart democracy and allow them to dictate to the majority, in spite of losing popular votes, have found passing legislation a far different matter than simply blocking legislation, for just this very reason. The Constitutional provision for Presidential veto enforces democracy through yet another check and balance.
The underlying principle of our government is that government gets its authority to govern from the people it purports to govern. That "government governs with the consent of the people."
Our legislative process isn't designed to be efficient. Its designed to ensure legislation represents the consensus of the American people. That government truly does have the "consent" of The People to enact such legislation.
The system's imperfect, of course. (Some might say imperfect in the extreme.) Its just the best system anyone's been able to come up with to do what we want it to do.
Anywho. That's my humble opinion.
David,
With regard to your view of the Presidency and the oligarchy that "really" runs our government; the Constitution was specifically modified to ensure wealthy slave owners would not be adversely impacted by any future legislation, and only male landowners had the vote.
Our country, indeed, historically, the entire world's civilizations, have always seen disproportionate, if not absolute, control of government in the hands of the wealthy. In spite of our own propaganda, the American experiment never really purported to end that practice. Merely to institutionally recognize its unfairness and experiment with mitigating it.
I've few qualms with your basic arguments; only with your implication its some recent development. It isn't. Not by a long chalk! And things haven't suddenly gotten worse. They've been consistently getting better. Though we do tend to backslide from time to time!
I am sure that many of ya'all could write my answers for me.. :D
But here goes...
(1.) It has been argued that the president has become too powerful over the years despite the checks carried out by the other branches, do you think that this is indeed the case?
Abso-frakin-loutly...
The evidence of this is all around us. Most recently the smackdown Obama received from the courts regarding his illegal recess appointments.
My gods, people! Our current POTUS has declared that he can determine, ON HIS OWN, that an American citizen must die and it will happen. No trial, no due process, no nothing.
Even worse, ANY "High Official" in our government can ALSO make that determination.
If THAT doesn't convince anyone that the Power Of The Presidency has grown TOO much, NOTHING will...
Now remember, *I* personally, don't have a problem with this. I have always maintained that we elect our President to make the decisions based on what we can not or, more accurately, do not WANT, to know...
If our POTUS (ANY POTUS) decides that Al-Alwaki is a possible threat to the US, take his ass out.....
"Take them... out.. Take them down. Do your thing."
-Jeff Goldblum, INDEPENDENCE DAY
..... citizenship be damned.
So, the SHORT answer (too late! :D) is yes. The power of the Presidency has grown of late...
(2.) In your opinion, is it fair to say that after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush started to take a firmer stand in terms of his role as Commander in Chief?
Yes, it is definitely fair and accurate to say this.
9/11 was a turning point in this country. An "End Of Innocence" if you will.. I would make the argument that, in many ways, it surpassed even The Day Of Infamy that presaged the US's entry into WWII.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
As I indicate above, I have no problem with this expansion of presidential power..
But it is useless to deny it exists as the evidence is all around us, even today.
(3.) In your opinion, should a president indeed be given the sole authority to deploy troops and allow for military action without consent from Congress?
The POTUS DOES already have this power.. But he must report to Congress on his actions within a set time frame and from that point on, Congress should always be part of the team..
The fact that our current POTUS has also violated THIS law is a testament to the answer in #1.
And NOT in a good way..
(4.) Do you think that there is the possibility of President Obama exploiting his use of presidential powers more in his second term?</I
As we have seen ample evidence of, Obama has NO QUALMS about ignoring Congress when they don't do what he wants... The DREAM ACT and the Recess Appointments are but two examples in a long list of examples..
Again, it is useless to deny that Obama has done this time and time again in the past and there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to suggest he will not continue to do so in the future..
In short, there is not only a "possibility" that Obama will exploit and expand his presidential powers, there is nearly a CERTAINTY that he will...
(5.) The separation of powers gives Congress the authority to overturn a presidential veto. What is your opinion in terms of allowing the president the authority of the veto in the first place?
This question is above my pay grade.. I know, I know.. It's a cop-out, but.... I can only say that it has seemed to work out so far..
Anyways, there are my answers.
I am sure none are surprising to anyone.. :D
Now, as I am wont to do, let me pick apart everyone else's answers. :D
Michale
I've few qualms with your basic arguments; only with your implication its some recent development. It isn't. Not by a long chalk! And things haven't suddenly gotten worse. They've been consistently getting better. Though we do tend to backslide from time to time!
I'm with 'ya, LewDan. That implication was not meant to be implied. Absolutely much of our original government (and every government for that matter in some way/shape/form) was designed to protect the interests of the well heeled (the Southern slave owner 3/5s rule being the most obvious). I think one of the big successes with our government was the balance, the balance with the interests of people (or as you said, it's getting better!). Perhaps its just the recent 'backslide' which gets me. Or maybe just the new & creative ways power has found to consolidate and influence. :) Well said!
as imperfect as the system is, when response time needs to be instant i'd rather have one person responsible than a hundred.
nypoet (&LewDan as well). Good point about responsiveness. The flip side to this is when a response turns into a quagmire/war. Or, when a President with a political agenda uses a political motive to create a "military action" (which is also really a war).
This was the impetus behind the War Powers Act - designed to allow the President the time/space needed to respond appropriately while putting a check in place to try and prevent the above. Unfortunately, several Presidents have flaunted the law and found creative ways around this check.
Where I give Obama credit is that he has not worked to create a war in the way that Romney & others were pushing to go to war with Iran. Where I think he overreaches is by continuing our drone strike policy.
-David
Joshua,
4. yes, it's definitely possible since he no longer has to worry about his prospects for re-election. whether he will exploit those powers for good or ill, and to what extent, remains to be seen. the right tends to wax apoplectic whenever he flexes his executive muscles even slightly, while the left at times seem oblivious to any possible overreach, because he's "their guy."
This is the first time I have ever seen this actually articulated by ANY Weigantian, sans your's truly and The Grand Poobah hisself.. :D
Kudos.
I would be interested in other Weigantian's opinions on Joshua's statement..
True?? False?? Why??
David,
Absolutely. War, if i remember correctly, was never declared against Afghanistan. In the authorization to use military force act, Republicans pushed through legislation which basically gave the president a blank check to bypass congress. Cheney's position at the time was something along the lines of "if there was a 1 percent chance that someone might be a terrorist, we have to treat it as a certainty". This was a huge change in our foreign policy approach from our previous position of not using force unless attacked. Basically, if we could drum up any suspicion whatsoever, force could be justified by Cheney's philosophy. This lead directly to attacking Iraq based on flimsy (if any) actual evidence of a real terrorist threat.
Have you read the DOJ White Paper on Justification For Assassinations Of American Citizens??
How is that any different than how you describe the Bush Administration's policies??
It's 10 times "worse" (from a Lefty's view) as I don't recall Bush *ever* trying to make the case that he can kill an American Citizen w/o a trial anywhere in the world, just on his say so alone..
Where's the difference??
LD, LD, LD... My old friend LD :D
1. No. Unequivocally. The growth of Presidential power is a partisan (both parties, depending on who's in power) myth. The Bush administration was able to do whatever they chose because they had the Republican Congress in their back-pocket
And yet, as we have seen in current events, the MINORITY in Congress can STILL ground a POTUS's agenda to a halt if they so choose..
In other words, Democrats COULD have stopped Bush's agenda as readily as the GOP has stopped Obama's agenda, *IF THEY WERE SO INCLINED TO DO SO*....
But they didn't..
So, either one of two things are factual.
1. Democrats really believed in the Bush policies and just gave lip service to opposing them to appease their base..
or
B. Democrats are incompetent and can't really perform the functions of a Minority Party..
Take your pick...
As much as I hate to admit it, the evidence of the here and now seems to support #1..
2.) Of course he did. Anyone would have. Its part "closing the barn door after the horses have gone" and part prioritization. Whatever may have been on the President's plate, when America is attacked, his role as Commander in Chief becomes the overriding priority, without qualification. Always has. Always will.
Dead on ballz accurate..
"It's an industry term."
-Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY
:D
3.) The President has always had that authority. The reason we have a Chief Executive and Commander In Chief is that the founders recognized that you cannot effectively manage day-to-day operations by committee. And you certainly don't wait on a committee consensus to respond to developing military situations. Particularly when our legislative branch has been intentionally designed to be inefficient as one of those "checks and balances" on potential government abuse of power.
Only Congress has the authority to declare war. But there is a huge difference between declaring war and fighting military battles. Much like the difference between administering day-to-day operations, including establishing policy, and legislating statutes.
Ditto.....
With the exceptions of the correction on #1, I pretty much agree with everything you said..
Sorry about that.. :D
Michale.....
BTW- Are we writing someone's paper? :)
(If so, I applaud the creative use of the Internet.)
Have you read the DOJ White Paper on Justification For Assassinations Of American Citizens?
Of course. The case against it was made by liberals. And he should end this policy.
Would un-electing Obama and putting a Republican in power as you advise change the policy? No.
- David
BTW- Are we writing someone's paper? :)
(If so, I applaud the creative use of the Internet.)
Now that made me laugh.. :D
"I'm not one for blasphemy, but that one made me laugh."
-Morgan Freeman, BRUCE ALMIGHTY
:D
Of course. The case against it was made by liberals. And he should end this policy.
How would you rank this issue in order of importance??
Is it a high priority for you?? Not so much??
Would un-electing Obama and putting a Republican in power as you advise change the policy? No.
But that's not what I asked..
What I asked was, do you see it as any different than how you characterize the Bush Administration and Darth Cheney's actions vis a vis the "1% Terrorist"??
Because the DOJ's White Paper redefines what "imminent" means..
According to Obama "imminent" means that an attack is being discussed and military action can be taken to prevent the attack.. Even if it's only in the discussion phase..
I mean, let's face it. That's a Darth Cheney wet dream, wouldn't ya say?? :D
I know you hate harping on this issue, but I think it's an important issue. It gives you insight into how those on the Right could support Bush. He was "their guy" just as Obama is "your guy"...
Michale
Would un-electing Obama and putting a Republican in power as you advise change the policy? No.
Also, keep in mind that *I* don't *WANT* a change in policy.
I think the policy is dead on ballz right and should be implemented at every opportunity..
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/06/skip-drone-debate-just-kill-terrorists-before-kill-us/
I *trust* our POTUS to make the right call when it comes to the safety and security of this country..
Even if that POTUS is Obama....
I know, I know.. It's amazing, iddn't it :D
Michale
Also, keep in mind that *I* don't *WANT* a change in policy.
I know.
That's why I think it's funny that you're using a liberal critique of Obama in an attempt to make Obama look bad so that you can put a conservative back in charge who would continue the expansion of Presidential powers.
I *trust* our POTUS to make the right call when it comes to the safety and security of this country.
Trust is a funny thing. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
What has been demonstrated throughout history, however, is that power corrupts. This, I believe, is one of the very reasons why our founders sought to split it up with a system of checks and balances.
I don't believe it would be a good thing to consolidate it further in any one branch or place. And I'm wary of anyone when their only argument is "trust me".
Sorry, Michale. "Trust me" sounds like a used car salesman :)
-David
i a. u on my cell phone at the fentist so i can't quote as i
normally do crap this aint wrkin. stand by
i a. u on my cell phone at the fentist so i can't quote as i
normally do crap this aint wrkin. stand by
LOL ... I'm sorry, Michale. I'm just laughing because the way you wrote sounds like how I sound when I try to talk with some damn dentist sticking their hands in my mouth.
Hope it ain't serious!
Also ... a bit of a distraction (apologies to any student guests but that's the way things go here sometimes), but all this talk of Washington power separation makes me wonder if anyone has seen House of Cards on Netflix yet?
I watched the first episode last night and have to say I'm hooked. Kevin Spacey is outstanding in evil roles and this one could be my favorite.
As usual, I'll give a different perspective :)
(1.) Yes. In general the amount of power you afford in the US to your President is pretty obscene. I can't think of many Western democracies that give their leader this much power single handedly. The closest examples I can think of are non-Western countries, which should tell you all you need to know.
(2) I don't think George Bush was ever a 'firm' Commender in Chief. He was a complete puppet to those around him who pushed their own agenda. At the time he was surrounded by Neo-Cons, so his agenda became the neo-con one.
(3) Absolutely never in a million years.
(4) I doubt it because there are a bunch of nut-job-radical-lunatics who will jump on the slightest thing he does. Just watch Fox News for 30 seconds or read any Michale comment on here to see what I mean. The fact there have been so few scandals in his time is testament to how well he has led with these people ready to pounce on anything or turn anything into a nonsense over-the-top media generated 'scandal' (see Benghazi).
(5) Similar to (1), I don't know of any Western democracy that allows 1 person to veto bills before them. And before the jibes come in, technically the Queen could do this in the UK but if she ever did it would be the end of the monarchy. So as far as I'm concerned I hope she does veto a bill ;)
As usual, I'll give a different perspective :)
(1.) Yes. In general the amount of power you afford in the US to your President is pretty obscene. I can't think of many Western democracies that give their leader this much power single handedly. The closest examples I can think of are non-Western countries, which should tell you all you need to know.
(2) I don't think George Bush was ever a 'firm' Commender in Chief. He was a complete puppet to those around him who pushed their own agenda. At the time he was surrounded by Neo-Cons, so his agenda became the neo-con one.
(3) Absolutely never in a million years.
(4) I doubt it because there are a bunch of nut-job-radical-lunatics who will jump on the slightest thing he does. Just watch Fox News for 30 seconds or read any Michale comment on here to see what I mean. The fact there have been so few scandals in his time is testament to how well he has led with these people ready to pounce on anything or turn anything into a nonsense over-the-top media generated 'scandal' (see Benghazi).
(5) Similar to (1), I don't know of any Western democracy that allows 1 person to veto bills before them. And before the jibes come in, technically the Queen could do this in the UK but if she ever did it would be the end of the monarchy. So as far as I'm concerned I hope she does veto a bill ;)
"So, either one of two things are factual.
1. Democrats really believed in the Bush policies and just gave lip service to opposing them to appease their base..
or
B. Democrats are incompetent and can't really perform the functions of a Minority Party..
Take your pick... "
As usual, Michale, The correct answer is: "c.) None of the above."
The Democrats chose not to abuse their power to prevent majority rule, unconstitutionally obstruct the President's execution of his lawful responsibilities, and unethically blackmail the entire nation for partisan gain--unlike, of course, the Republicans.
"Abuse of power" doesn't just mean doing things you've no authority to do. It also means doing things you technically have the power to do, but are trusted to ethically exercise the discretion, not to do, particularly not to do them for personal or partisan gain--such as, say, ginning up your support with your base in hopes of making the duly elected President of the United States a "one-term President."
And, Michale, don't apologize for agreeing with me. What I can't understand is why everyone doesn't always agree with me! As you well know I'm a humble non-confrontational sort of guy with no closely held beliefs who just wants to be liked! I always go well out of my way to avoid saying anything that anyone could possibly construe as the least bit offensive--and yet, I'm, apparently, constantly misunderstood. *sigh*
Oh, and Michty6,
About the President's power... Remember we've a tricameral system in which all three branches are equal in authority and each have virtually unlimited power. (With but a few exceptions.)
We operate under the premise that encouraging them to fight amongst themselves makes it more difficult for them to concentrate on fighting us.
Lol true. Therein lies the flaws inherent in the system!
Don't forget the role of voting too. Before you get to an election (which are held as often as possible at great expense) you have to have an election to decide who will be available for election (for both main parties). That way you can ensure that the people elected to do nothing are truly representative of the people in their do-nothingness!
Speaking of my last comment, the peasant's system in this video clearly sums up the best form of Government ;) (see 1:10 onwards in particular)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY
"Before you get to an election (which are held as often as possible at great expense) you have to have an election to decide who will be available for election (for both main parties). That way you can ensure that the people elected to do nothing are truly representative of the people in their do-nothingness!"
Ahhh! But, its when they do try to do things that invariably leads us to trouble!
Ah LD that's the American spirit :)
"I always thought we were an autonomous collective!"
Hahahahah!
technically the Queen could do this in the UK but if she ever did it would be the end of the monarchy. So as far as I'm concerned I hope she does veto a bill ;)
i don't know that's necessarily the case. vis-a-vis the queen stepping in to veto an act of parliament (or whatever the terminology is over there), i would say it depended on just how unpopular said act was. didn't she do something to help limit british involvement in the iraq war? as a head of state with with next to no executive power, the queen's authority rests solely on the will of the people to allow the monarchic tradition to continue. if she chose to veto something that was such garbage that a strong majority in the country agreed with her, i don't think it would undermine that authority. the key would be to hold that power in reserve for only the most glaring parliamentary overreach. more frequent use of such power probably would mean the end of the monarchy.
David,
LOL ... I'm sorry, Michale. I'm just laughing because the way you wrote sounds like how I sound when I try to talk with some damn dentist sticking their hands in my mouth.
Whatta mess!! My smartphone, not me teeth. Well, they're a mess too, but that's another story..
I was typing out my comment, but the damn thing wouldn't line feed, so I couldn't see what was being posted..
While I can take apart a laptop and put it back together blindfolded, I have yet to master my smartphone.
I always turn to my daughter for help with that. :D
I don't believe it would be a good thing to consolidate it further in any one branch or place. And I'm wary of anyone when their only argument is "trust me".
Sorry, Michale. "Trust me" sounds like a used car salesman :)
And yet, you trust Obama..
If you didn't, you would be calling for his impeachment. Like the Left did under Bush..
LD,
The Democrats chose not to abuse their power to prevent majority rule, unconstitutionally obstruct the President's execution of his lawful responsibilities, and unethically blackmail the entire nation for partisan gain--unlike, of course, the Republicans.
Horse Pucky..
To answer the latter first, the GOP is merely fulfilling it's function as the Minority Party..
Yer just pissy because they do it so much better than Dems.. :D
As to the former, you seem to be claiming that Democrats acted with pure and patriotic motives with absolutely NO partisan bent whatsoever..
You do this in spite of the fact that there is not one SHRED of evidence to support this theory and there is massive amounts of evidence that totally decimates the theory..
And, Michale, don't apologize for agreeing with me. What I can't understand is why everyone doesn't always agree with me! As you well know I'm a humble non-confrontational sort of guy with no closely held beliefs who just wants to be liked! I always go well out of my way to avoid saying anything that anyone could possibly construe as the least bit offensive--and yet, I'm, apparently, constantly misunderstood. *sigh*
Hehehehehe We all have our bears we must cross.. :D
"Be well, Warden Smithers"
-Lenona Huxley, DEMOLITION MAN
:D
Michale
Also, keep in mind that *I* don't *WANT* a change in policy.
I know.
Yer not the LEAST bit incredulous that Obama and I are completely on the same page when it comes to CT policies??
I lie awake at night appreciating the irony.. :D
Michale
That's why I think it's funny that you're using a liberal critique of Obama in an attempt to make Obama look bad so that you can put a conservative back in charge who would continue the expansion of Presidential powers.
You completely misunderstand my point..
From the CT Perspective, I am ECSTATIC that Obama is President..
As we have seen Democrats won't let a Republican President get away with hardly ANY necessary counter terrorism policy w/o trying to expose the whole thing.
This Dem POTUS has a LOT more latitude to do what needs to be done because he doesn't have to fight the Left harder then he has to fight Al Qaeda, as Bush was forced to do...
Obama is Cheney on Steroids and can get away with it because of that all important '-D' after his name..
Michale
akadjian [9] -
Yes, yes we are (helping) write someone's paper. Heh.
OK, I have been following this fascinating conversation, but I won't be writing my own answers until probably tomorrow. I promise I'll post my own take on it here then, and maybe answer some of these comments, but for now I'm just sitting back and watching the argument.
Carry on....
-CW
Obama is Cheney on Steroids
That's just it though. He's not.
Obama is winding wars down, not actively trying to start more (ala Romney).
He doesn't believe in unilateral action.
He believes in going after the criminals (as evidenced by his focus on bin Laden), not invading countries on trumped up terrorism claims to pursue a political agenda.
While I believe Obama could be doing more, his views are night and day different from Cheney.
Sorry but your basic claim that Obama = Cheney simply doesn't hold up.
-David
I will have to say, however, Michale, that I'm glad these issues are being brought to the forefront.
Because of the attention, maybe some additional oversight will be added. And this is a good thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130208/us-drones-politics/?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=politics
-David
"Because of the attention, maybe some additional oversight will be added. And this is a good thing."
Congress has NO OVERSIGHT authority over the Commander In Chief. This thoroughly unconstitutional notion, championed by Congress, that they can, much less should, "limit" the President's authority is completely unconstitutional, aka illegal.
The constitution gives the President the exclusive authority to act as Commander In Chief. The Congress is required to uphold and defend the constitution. Therefor the Congress cannot, legally and constitutionally, decide to change the constitution by "limiting" Presidential power. Breaking the law and defying the constitution is not "a good thing."
"Horse Pucky..
To answer the latter first, the GOP is merely fulfilling it's function as the Minority Party.. "
No, this anything goes, as long as you get your way attitude that's brought Congress to a standstill is not "the role of the Minority Party." Its the role of zealots with no intention of participating in the democratic process, trying to manipulate the democratic process, in order to dictate to the majority instead of following the democratic process.
Deciding the ends justify the means is contrary to the rule of law, and has no place in the democratic process.
David,
He doesn't believe in unilateral action.
Did you even READ the White Paper???
"I don't know Oscar. Who do you think you are?"
"Han Solo!"
"If anyone is anyone, I am Han. And you.. You're Chewbacca..."
"Chewy!!??? Did you even SEE Star Wars!!??"
-ARMAGEDDON
:D
Seriously David. How can you read the DOJ White Paper and say that Obama doesn't believe in unilateral action..
Assassinating American Citizens without a trial or even the FICTION of Due Process is about as "unilateral" as it gets..
It's the very DEFINITION of "unilateral"
Sorry but your basic claim that Obama = Cheney simply doesn't hold up.
It does to those who are objective about the whole thing..
To say that Obama is not Cheney is to deny reality..
LD,
No, this anything goes, as long as you get your way attitude that's brought Congress to a standstill is not "the role of the Minority Party." Its the role of zealots with no intention of participating in the democratic process, trying to manipulate the democratic process, in order to dictate to the majority instead of following the democratic process.
It's how Democrats played things when THEY were the Minority Party..
At least at first..
But they couldn't keep their members in line so it all fell apart.
Like I said.. The Minority Party has a function. It's to obstruct the tyranny of the majority..
The simple fact is, Republicans simply do it better than Democrats.
That is ALL there is to it..
You claim that the GOP's actions are a threat to the country..
Ignoring for the moment that the DEMOCRAT's actions in opposing Bush were a TRUE threat to this country, the argument can be made that it's the Democrats actions in the here and now are the actions that are the threat...
The GOP's actions are simply a brake on actions that THEY see as a threat to this country.
The fact that ya'all disagree is completely irrelevant..
To the GOP, THEY are pursuing the best course of action for this country and it's the DEMOCRATS that are reckless and out of control..
Considering the facts of the here and now, that attitude is not far off the mark...
Deciding the ends justify the means is contrary to the rule of law, and has no place in the democratic process.
And yet we see that THAT is exactly how the Democrats have ruled since they gained power..
The DOJ White Paper is nothing BUT "the ends justifies the means" writ large...
Michale....
Assassinating American Citizens without a trial or even the FICTION of Due Process is about as "unilateral" as it gets..
It's the very DEFINITION of "unilateral"
Commander in Chief is a "unilateral" position. Assassination is "due process," for battlefields, as you well know. The problem with your hero was his refusal to provide due process off the battlefield.
Like I said.. The Minority Party has a function. It's to obstruct the tyranny of the majority..
The simple fact is, Republicans simply do it better than Democrats.
Now you're promoting anarchy?!The purpose of the Minority Party, like any other party is to operate within the democratic process. Republicans simply decided since they can't win votes they'll change the rules. And its Republicans who believe in tyranny, whether they're the minority or the majority, instead of allowing people to democratically determine their own fates. Republicans are intent on imposing their beliefs on everyone else regardless of what anyone else may want. Their arrogant self-delusion that they know the one true way and have a right to make everyone else do whatever they want is as un-American, undemocratic, and as unscrupulous as it gets. The GOP's actions are rationalizations to avoid accepting any responsibility for their own actions, deny people their right to self-determination, and perpetuate damage to America so they can "justify" the failed policies they claim are to prevent the damage they are inflicting.
The DOJ White Paper is nothing BUT "the ends justifies the means" writ large...
The role of the Commander In Chief is to use military force to achieve national security objectives. It isn't "the ends justify the means," its the ends defined by the constitution using the means provided by the constitution. If you mean obeying the law, as opposed to the Republican's just doing whatever they please and ignoring the constitution, "is exactly how the Democrats have ruled since they gained power.." you are absolutely correct.
Commander in Chief is a "unilateral" position. Assassination is "due process," for battlefields, as you well know.
Assassination is ALSO illegal..
Aren't you a "rule of law" kinda guy?? :D
Their arrogant self-delusion that they know the one true way and have a right to make everyone else do whatever they want is as un-American, undemocratic, and as unscrupulous as it gets.
I completely agree... 1000%!
You just described the Democratic Party to a tee!!
The role of the Commander In Chief is to use military force to achieve national security objectives. It isn't "the ends justify the means," its the ends defined by the constitution using the means provided by the constitution.
Are you REALLY making the argument that the DOJ White Paper is completely within the bounds of the US Constitution?
I think you would have a tough time making that argument..
Even here in Wegantia... :D
But hay.. We DO seem to have a consensus.. Even David agrees that it's high time to discuss the issue..
So, let's put it to the floor..
Those who believe that assassinating American Citizens without a trial or due process is completely Constitutional.....
Say AYE
:D
Michale
Their arrogant self-delusion that they know the one true way and have a right to make everyone else do whatever they want is as un-American, undemocratic, and as unscrupulous as it gets.
I completely agree... 1000%!
You just described the Democratic Party to a tee!!
To be fair, you ALSO described the Republican Party as well..
:D
Michale
Those who believe that assassinating American Citizens without a trial or due process is completely Constitutional.....
Say AYE
Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I believe that your argument is correct, LD...
That Obama's actions are within the US Constitution...
I *HAVE* to concede that argument...
Because it's the EXACT same argument I made during the Bush years with regards to Bush's actions...
An argument, I might add, that was resoundingly and uniformly ridiculed here in Wegantia.. :D
So, I guess the REAL argument here is this:
When it comes to Counter Terrorism policies, does Obama = Bush....
Of course, the evidence is clear..
Obama = Bush
Michale
Michale,
it isn't "Obama = Bush" its "The President = The President." The reason Bush really frosted my cake is that once a President institutes a policy, sets a precedent, it cannot be undone. I expected Obama to discontinue the more egregious and unconstitutional ones, at least for now, but I never expected drastic changes. That simply would have been unrealistic.
The President's got a tough job. He's not going to make it tougher by tying his own hands if he doesn't have to. I don't know that Obama is continuing the more unsavory Bush polices in some way, I hope not, but it wouldn't really surprise me if he was. And, as I said if he is still torturing, he's a criminal too.
"Those who believe that assassinating American Citizens without a trial or due process is completely Constitutional.....
Say AYE"
AYE! The constitution actually only tries to protect people from government harassment and coercion. If the President of the United States deems you a threat to national security and decides to wax your ass, the constitution makes no attempt to shield you. None. At all.
"That Obama's actions are within the US Constitution...
I *HAVE* to concede that argument...
Because it's the EXACT same argument I made during the Bush years with regards to Bush's actions..."
When the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit an act it remains within the government's discretion. When it does, however, such as holding people indefinitely without trial, filing criminal charges not authorized by grand jury, denying trial by peers, denying access to the courts, ect., ect., then those actions, such as Bush's were, are unconstitutional and illegal.
And since torture is illegal due to treaty obligations, treaties we originated and obtained, by the way. And since treaties carry the force of constitutional law, by order of the constitution, Bush's torture regime was illegal and unconstitutional. Since, according to the constitution, those anti-torture treaties constitutionally limited the Commander In Chief to actions other than torture.
And, since we also have reciprocal treaties regarding respecting the sovereignty and local laws of countries like, say, Italy. Bush's kidnapping people off Italian streets in "extraordinary rendition" was also unconstitutional and illegal.
Let me also add that if a President assassinates people who are not threats to national security the constitution provides that such Presidents be tried by the Senate and impeached upon conviction. Even though the actions may have been constitutional, abusing the power and discretion of the Office Of President does just fine in qualifying as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
The constitution doesn't condone the arbitrary murder of American citizens, it just doesn't interfere with the murder of traitors.
"Assassination is ALSO illegal..
Aren't you a "rule of law" kinda guy?? :D"
Where in the constitution is assignation illegal? Because statutory bans on assassination don't apply to the Commander In Chief. Everyone else, all the rest of us, sure. But not the Commander in Chief. Because Congress has no authority to legislate limits to the Presidents constitutionally assigned duties and prerogatives.
Now, when I was in the Army we routinely used snipers to assassinate people. You've been in the service more recently than I have. Has that changed?! Has there been some recent constitutional amendment of which I'm unaware?
Where in the constitution is assignation illegal? Because statutory bans on assassination don't apply to the Commander In Chief. Everyone else, all the rest of us, sure. But not the Commander in Chief. Because Congress has no authority to legislate limits to the Presidents constitutionally assigned duties and prerogatives.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11905
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12036
Are you making the case that, if the President does it, it's not illegal?? :D
Now, when I was in the Army we routinely used snipers to assassinate people. You've been in the service more recently than I have. Has that changed?! Has there been some recent constitutional amendment of which I'm unaware?
War has different rules..
And, as the Left has stated ad nasuem, we are not at war...
Michale
The constitution doesn't condone the arbitrary murder of American citizens, it just doesn't interfere with the murder of traitors.
I have never liked you as much as I do right now! :D
Michale
Michale,
You know as well as I do that Executive Orders don't restrict the President! Presidents have no Constitutional authority to constrain future Presidents!
"War has different rules..
And, as the Left has stated ad nasuem, we are not at war..."
1.) If you want to debate "the Left" then stop addressing your remarks to me.
2.) "War" like every other word in the English language has more than one meaning. Congress hasn't declared an official "state of war" that, actually, has nothing to do with the Commander in Chief deciding, in the interests of national security, to order the military of the United States of America to "do war" upon someone.
The constitution doesn't condone the arbitrary murder of American citizens, it just doesn't interfere with the murder of traitors.
"I have never liked you as much as I do right now! :D"
Michale,
I've never been under any illusions about the authority of the CIC, or the realities of war. If you'll recall I asserted that if, in the face of an imminent threat, torture was the ONLY way to save lives, even torture would be legal, as self-defense trumps every other law.—Routinely using torture, though, just to "prep" prisoners for interrogation?--Not so much. Still illegal and unconstitutional.
1.) If you want to debate "the Left" then stop addressing your remarks to me.
Once again.... 'Fair enough'....
But in THIS particular case, you are the exception rather than the rule, when it comes to "The Left"..
You must concede that, at least...
Michale....
It does to those who are objective about the whole thing.
I'm sure you believe you have objective reasons.
A casual observer, however, might notice that you don't seem to be able to have a conversation without raging against the "Left" or "Obama".
-David
"A casual observer, however, might notice that you don't seem to be able to have a conversation without raging against the "Left" or "Obama". "
The Democrats, David. You forgot the Democrats. If Republicans are accused of anything unsavory, Democrats must have also been guilty of it—and guilty of it first!
"Objectively" speaking, of course.
Hahahaha
A casual observer, however, might notice that you don't seem to be able to have a conversation without raging against the "Left" or "Obama".
I simply call them as I see them..
A casual observer will ALSO notice that, whenever ya'all don't have a rebuttal to the facts, ya'all simply comment on my "raging".. :D
Why is that??
Michale
Note to everyone
I haven't forgotten about this column, and have been (mostly) fascinated by the wide spectrum of intelligent replies.
I will be posting my responses to the questions as tomorrow's column (2/14/13).
-CW
Snap responses before I see what anyone else has written:
(1.) It has been argued that the president has become too powerful over the years despite the checks carried out by the other branches, do you think that this is indeed the case?
Yes. Is there really any argument about this?
(2.) In your opinion, is it fair to say that after the events of 9/11, George W. Bush started to take a firmer stand in terms of his role as Commander in Chief?
Not really. He asked for tax cuts on the rich, and Congress enthusiastically complied. His lawyers made outrageous claims about the supposedly-inherent power to disappear people within US jurisdiction, of course. Theoretically that had to come from the lawyers so that the perpetrators could have impunity on the grounds that their actions were consistent with the consent of the lawyers. I don't really know whether he was directly involved, but it doesn't really seem like the sort of thing he was gearing up for during his period as Brush-Clearer-in-Chief.
(3.) In your opinion, should a president indeed be given the sole authority to deploy troops and allow for military action without consent from Congress?
Should he be given sole authority? Of course not. Does Congress have the power to authorize broad discretion over deployments? Yes.
(4.) Do you think that there is the possibility of President Obama exploiting his use of presidential powers more in his second term?
Possibility? Yes. Likely? No. I think he's going to stay in "pass something, anything, please" mode right to the bitter end.
(5.) The separation of powers gives Congress the authority to overturn a presidential veto. What is your opinion in terms of allowing the president the authority of the veto in the first place?
It was a reasonable check on the supposedly-supreme power of Congress. We should throttle back presidential power somehow, but my hunch is there's something better than ditching the veto.