Presidential Power
Alexander Hamilton made one speech at the Constitutional Convention. He called for a monarch for the executive power in the new government. The idea was rejected by the convention. Article II creating the presidency was left a bit vague because everyone knew George Washington was going to be the first president and it was going to be left to him to fill out some of the elements of his office.
The Founders intended, and expected, that the Congress in general and the House in particular to be, and was going to be, the most powerful branch of government. They were also creating a government of limited powers in which powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government remained with the people and the States.
Thus, I do not understand the Bush Administrations straining to find regal powers inherent in Article II. Where are these powers? For an administration that believes in "strict construction" and small powers they reserve for themselves quite expansive dictatorial powers.
Devin CarpenterMany people, most notably Fred Barnes, go on and on about how President Bush is a Washington outsider. I believe that President Bush is an outsider in two ways: 1) He is intellectually feeble and 2) he has the same disdain for the congress and government that conservatives outside of government have. It is clear that this hatred of government and it's slow process (I must emphasize that it is meant to be slow and should be slow) has led Bush to bypass the whole system itself, and make his own laws. With wire-tapping, torture, and Jose Padilla, it's clear that President Bush wants to be a "doer"... just not in step with the other branches of government. (Note: Strict Contructionism is in many ways a political position. Cass R. Sunstein documents in his book RADICALS IN ROBES many instances of when strict constructionist's like Thomas write hypocritical opinions.)
February 6, 2006 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The satisfactions attendant upon the exercise of power trump those flowing from adhering to a consistent ideology.
And too, a history of humiliation (Rumsfeld and Cheney 1973-1976) is a powerful goad.
February 6, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are these powers?
They're in the pocket of the fifth Justice willing to say, "There they are!"
Just as Gerald Ford taught us that impeachable offenses are what the House says they are, so too is the Bush administration trying to teach us that the powers of the presidency are what they can convince the Supreme Court to say they are.
And though they may ultimately fail, the program is clear: I'm doing it until you stop me. And I might mean physically.
February 6, 2006 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What suprises and saddens me is not so much that Bush and his minions are willing to sacrifice our rights in the name of power, using fear to engineer the power grab, it is the relative silence or tacit support from Democrats, the Media even academia.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 6, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is sad, isn't it?
They're being advised that you don't want to hear about it. They're being advised that it's quite enough that Republicans are struggling with their problems, and that they should be left to deal with them.
They're being advised that you want them to run on the same, safe, jobs and health care agenda they've been running on for years, only this time, your neighbors will vote for it because they've got a vague sense that something's not right with the Republicans, only they can't put a finger on exactly what that something is, for some reason. So I guess we're just supposed to cross our fingers and hope they figure it out, without any help from us.
February 8, 2006 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink