« Is Voting Genetic? | Main | Public School Choice »
October 25, 2007
More, More, More on Executive Power
On this whole executive power debate, I think Matt's right to say that the problem is less the scope of executive authority and more the absence of serious Congressional checks on his behavior (though I think that's partly for the historical reasons my commenters pointed out yesterday). Put another way, it's not that the president shouldn't have a wide range of motion, but that Congress should have a broader range of tools capable of reining him in.
Or maybe not. Matt mentions that impeachment exists for high crimes and misdemeanors, but not bad choices and poor decisions. But note how the Republicans warped that clause to assail Clinton. Do we want to lower the bar for the future? Which gets to the trouble with some of this: There are a lot of measures I'd like to put in place to help this Congress restrain this president. There are fewer that I'm comfortable instituting in order to help future Republican Congresses cynically destroy future Democratic presidents. We're in a moment right now where it's the executive who's been dangerous and irresponsible. Ten years ago, it was the Congress. And this will all flip again.
Additionally, it's worth keeping in mind how atypical George W. Bush is. Most presidents do have general constraints on their behavior. They care about their personal popularity. They care about their party's prospects. They care about their successor's campaign. Bush has no successor, no party loyalty, and appears to have decided that he'll be loved 40 years from now, much like Truman. He's a uniquely hard guy to constrain (an argument I make in greater detail here). If this becomes a pattern with modern presidents, you really will need to institute new rules in order to check their power, as the old constraints will have ceased to be operative. But this wasn't the case with Clinton, Bush 43, Reagan, etc. Lots of folks talk about how atypically awful Bush is, and maybe they're right.
Unless, of course, we elect Giuliani.
October 25, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
But note how the Republicans warped that clause to assail Clinton.
Exactly how is prosecuting the president for deliberately lying, a 'warp'? Who cares about the sordid sex with young staffers? That's his wife's problem.
Bill Clinton wagged his finger in the camera at every American and lied to them. He lied to his lieutenants and sent them out to spread the lie. Then he lied in a court of law and was admonished for it and ordered to pay a $90,000.00 fine for telling that lie.
The problem with Bill's lie is that he had nowhere to go when caught. He had no plausible deniability. He was guilty for the world to see. What else could have been done with him?
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 25, 2007 10:25:55 AM
Bush and the Republicans destroyed the tradition and professionalism that used to restrain power. That's what the whole Unitary Executive is about - overriding the ethical and professional standards that were in effect (think Justice Department). And then there was the dismantling of all the conventions in Congress (e.g. blue slip rule).
It's very difficult to craft rules to rein in that kind of overreach. What needs to change is that the radical Republicans have to exit government. That usually requires the public to be on board, and while many are, not enough are. True, the radicals are getting lots of support from business, but the only way to get business to switch away is for the Republicans to be dispised by the public. Look to the 1930's. Business hated Democrats but the politics of the day meant that they had to give up the idea of undoing the New Deal. Even Eisenhower, the first Republican president after the depression accepted the New Deal. And business accomodated as well.
That was then. Today we are witnessing a repeat of Guilded Age politics, with business in the driver's seat, and they are the ones who give the Republicans the political power they have (much aided by the media - which is more "business" and less "journalism"). This will change only when the country hates Republicans as much as they do Bush.
Posted by: Quiddity | Oct 25, 2007 11:02:09 AM
I'm really very concerned with the decline of the legislature as the primary decision-making branch of the government. I'd like to see the administration reduced to its titular role of administrating.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Oct 25, 2007 11:05:21 AM
But note how the Republicans warped that clause to assail Clinton.
Another way to look at it is that the Congressional Republicans threw basically everything they had and our system of government, executive branch, and foreign policy stayed largely intact. If impeachment had succeeded and Gore became president, that would probably be an improvement (at least the precedent might make it easier to impeach Bush now.)
Comparing how things were with a crazy Congress to how they are with a crazy President leads me to think Congress has too little power.
Posted by: Consumatopia | Oct 25, 2007 11:20:05 AM
I'm thinking a bit about our ability to affect elected leaders once they've taken office, specifically impeachment vs recall. Why DON'T we have the ability to stage a recall election for Senators, Congressmen, and the President? Or a vote of no confidence that actually forces the official to resign?
Posted by: Lorkish | Oct 25, 2007 12:14:57 PM
Comparing how things were with a crazy Congress to how they are with a crazy President leads me to think Congress has too little power.
I doubt that. The Republicans in Congress have basically put Bush's self interest over there own. That's a big accomplishment when you think about it. I don't think the Founding Fathers would have thought that Congressional Republicans would willingly cede their power like they have.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Oct 25, 2007 12:16:53 PM
Matt mentions that impeachment exists for high crimes and misdemeanors, but not bad choices and poor decisions. But note how the Republicans warped that clause to assail Clinton. Do we want to lower the bar for the future?
Yes.
This has been another edition of simple answers to overly complicated questions.
Posted by: Christmas | Oct 25, 2007 12:32:22 PM
Congress has created the permissive environment. The Congress has ignored the Constitutional mandate that no appropriation for the military should exceed two years. They have repeatedly trampled on most of the Bill of Rights.
You really have two choices- resume Constitutional government, or use the extended and illegal powers to seize the property of the wealthy and force the majority to curb their global warming ways.
Or, you can allow a latter-day Hitler to emerge who will protect the wealthy, pander to the masses, and attack the world to steal what is needed to maintain our lifestyle.
Choose wisely.
Posted by: serial catowner | Oct 25, 2007 1:22:10 PM
This is the kind of problem you get when one of the defining differences between the two parties is that one believes in following the rules and the other doesn't. Republicans would gladly pass all kinds of legislation that hemmed in the executive when the President is a Democrat. Then when a Republican became President again, they would just ignore those rules.
Similarly, do you really think that if the current situation was reversed, that a Republican Congress would be as accommodating as this Democratic Congress has been? We've already seen that, to some degree, and it seems pretty clear that the answer is Hell No.
Democrats have tools that they just WON'T USE. Because it would be, I don't know, unseemly or rude or something.
Posted by: tatere | Oct 25, 2007 2:54:59 PM
Exactly how is prosecuting the president for deliberately lying, a 'warp'? Who cares about the sordid sex with young staffers? That's his wife's problem.
Bill Clinton wagged his finger in the camera at every American and lied to them. He lied to his lieutenants and sent them out to spread the lie. Then he lied in a court of law and was admonished for it and ordered to pay a $90,000.00 fine for telling that lie.
"We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Goerge Bush, March 30 2003.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Oct 25, 2007 5:22:06 PM
Exactly how is prosecuting the president for deliberately lying, a 'warp'? Who cares about the sordid sex with young staffers? That's his wife's problem.
Your side set a perjury trap for him, betting he would lie about "sordid sex with [a] young staffer". He shouldn't have lied--but your side shouldn't have been asking the questions in the first place. Shame on him for being a fool--shame on you for the damage you did to your country, for reasons far more sordid in their own way than Bill Clinton's sex life.
Posted by: rea | Oct 25, 2007 8:45:34 PM
The problem is with all the assorted doctrines for executive privilege and for other inherent powers of the presidency, regardless of which party is in power. Ten years ago, the ACLU rated Clinton the worst president to date for his record on electronic privacy.
Let's get something clear: warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, signing statements, and undeclared wars under the aegis of the "commander in chief" power are very, very bad things--no matter which party is in power. Anyone who's OK with them so long as they're exercised by "responsible" parties (i.e., Democrats) is an idiot. Don't trust any president with powers you wouldn't trust to the worst of them.
The right-wing was right to object to Janet Reno, and wrong to switch into apologetic mode when Ashcroft came into office. Liberals were right to object to the Bush police state, and they're wrong to apologize for Clinton now.
I don't like authoritarianism and police statism, no matter WHO is doing it. I didn't like Reno OR Ashcroft. I don't like the authoritarianism of Feinstein and Schumer any more than that of Dick Shelby and Orrin Hatch.
The aggandizement of executive power and the abuse of federal law enforcement powers just ratchet upward from one party's rule to the next. And the whorishly partisan attitude you've expressed here is one reason it keeps happening.
Posted by: Kevin Carson | Oct 26, 2007 4:07:49 AM
A President is constrained by the Constitution, not by Congress. We seem to have this weird concept in our heads that Congress is the supreme branch and that it can change the President's powers by simple legislation. It doesn't work that way.
Congress's tool for violations of the President's Constitutional limitations is either to go to the courts, or impeach. Congress cannot constitutionally pass laws limiting the Presidents powers, except for those powers Congress delegated to the executive branch in the first place(such as environmental regulation).
Take the War Powers act for example. Not a single President of either party has recognized the constitutionality of the act, and with good reason.
Posted by: Adam Herman | Oct 27, 2007 12:51:17 AM
