« All Hail Google | Main | Crowding Out on Charity »
October 23, 2007
Executive Power
Right. I sort of wonder what folks think Hillary could've said when asked about Bush's arrogation of power to the executive: "It's been great for this country, I'm glad he set me up to be dictator?" She said she'll review it, and, if appropriate, relinquish bits and parts. I doubt she'll judge it appropriate (just like I doubt any of the other candidates, save maybe Ron Paul or Chris Dodd, would find it appropriate). The incentives for the president are to maximize power. That's why Congress actually has to assert itself here, not look to the goodwill of some future executive to do it for them.
October 23, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
She is just looking forward to arresting Bush & Cheney as enemy combatants as her first official act.
Posted by: spencer | Oct 23, 2007 4:42:03 PM
Spencer, don't be a tease.
They key is the word assert. The cynic me doesn't have much hope.
Posted by: catherine | Oct 23, 2007 5:31:27 PM
The incentives for the president are to maximize power. That's why Congress actually has to assert itself here, not look to the goodwill of some future executive to do it for them.
Indeed. Don't people take high school civics anymore? I do seem to remember something in the Federalist papers about "ambition being made to check ambition". The whole point of our system is that we avoid tyranny by making it in the President's political interest to assert power over Congress and in the political interest of Congresscritters to make a stink and check and balance the President (e.g. Harry Truman gaining political power by investigating matters related to the executive branch).
The real problem in our system (and the triumph of the GOP's denigration of "politics" and government) is that it's no longer in a politician's interest to make waves. Where before people would say "that Harry Truman -- sure he's only doing it for political reasons -- but let's reward him politically for doing such a good thing", now they'll say "oh that Henry Waxman -- he's only doing it for political reasons" and dismiss it thus.
Some have argued that the real triumph for civil liberties and the restoration of our political system coming with a Dem. president is that the media will suddenly remember how our system is supposed to work and checks and balances will be celebrated rather than derided as "unpatriotic" and "playing politics".
Posted by: DAS | Oct 23, 2007 6:25:19 PM
Congress is currently---and has been since Bush became President---disproving the Madisonian belief that each branch would seek to maximize its power. Instead, they continue to give up power, and seem almost happy to do it.
Its like Louis XIV and the nobles: as long as they get to live at Versailles, they will let the King have all the power he wants.
Posted by: JoshA | Oct 23, 2007 6:58:28 PM
Well, while it might not involve relequishing power, it's pretty clear that edwards and Obama would at least end the practices that the expanded powers have been used for: Guantanomo, enemy combatants, waterboarding.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Oct 23, 2007 7:53:15 PM
The fundamental problem is that, when they wrote the Constitution, the Founders failed to foresee the emergence of political parties (which they disapproved of). Checks and balances between branches don't work if the leaders of the different branches are all from the same party. The Framers placed a big bet on the nonexistence of the party system, and they lost. This became clear as soon as 1800, when the Constitution had to be amended to change the Presidential election process after the Burr/Jefferson fiasco. That, unfortunately, also eviscerated the impeachment process because it meant that another member of the President's party would take power. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Do you think the Democrats might have worked harder to push for impeachment if it meant that Kerry would become President rather than Cheney?
Posted by: Josh G. | Oct 23, 2007 8:12:46 PM
Clinton vows review of executive power
Clinton apparently says she'll give up SOME of the executive power that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have seized, in defiance of the Constitution if I may add.
It'll take a president with rare depth of character to relinquish ALL of that power, and encourage the Congress and the people of this country to amend the Constitution, to place strict limits on the executive branch, so that the United States will never again have to face the threat of a maniacal vice president attempting to set the president up as Emperor pro tempore.
But that's what needs to be done if we are to preserve the Republic and maintain the safeguards which ensure an equitable balance between the three branches of government.
Down with dictatorship, and all presidents who would set themselves up as de facto Kings supplanting the People's sovereignty!!!
Up to Republic, democracy, freedom, liberty and a constitutionally mandated balance of power throughout the land!!!
Posted by: Aaron | Oct 23, 2007 8:16:38 PM
George Washington could have been king. It doesn't take a George Washington to decide that the president shouldn't have dictatorial powers. If Clinton doesn't have respect separation of powers she shouldn't be president.
Posted by: bloix | Oct 23, 2007 9:31:16 PM
Its like Louis XIV and the nobles: as long as they get to live at Versailles, they will let the King have all the power he wants.
That's pretty much it.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 23, 2007 11:25:17 PM
Man, it's too bad Clinton isn't a politically powerful Senator in the majority party in Congress. Then she might be able to investigate Bush's power grab now.
Posted by: Raznor | Oct 24, 2007 3:31:52 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
