The Imperial Presidency: the '08 Candidates Weigh In

Looking back over the last year, it's one of the most important issues America faced. Looking ahead, it could turn out to be the "sleeper issue" of the 2008 presidential race.

I'm talking about executive power, the way it is used -- and has been abused over the last 7 years.

In a very revealing piece in the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage lays out the results of a questionnaire the Globe sent to the presidential candidates on the limits of executive power, asking their views on the Bush administration's expansive view of presidential authority.

It's hard to overstate how vital this issue is, or how far off the media radar screen it remains. Indeed, it's hard to think of another issue in which the importance-to-the-public
/attention-paid-by-the-media ratio is as out of whack.

As Savage -- who won a Pulitzer for his coverage of Bush's use of signing statements, and is the author of Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy -- puts it:

"Bush has bypassed laws and treaties that he said infringed on his wartime powers, expanded his right to keep information secret from Congress and the courts, centralized greater control over the government in the White House, imprisoned US citizens without charges, and used signing statements to challenge more laws than all predecessors combined."

True, a lot of the harm Bush has done can be rolled-back or repaired. But the way he wielded executive power greatly increased the ability of the executive branch to do damage. And the problem is, even well intentioned executives don't like to give up power.

It's easy to imagine the next president saying: Sure, Bush used his increased prerogatives to do damage but, trust me, I'll use them to do good.

The Constitution is a monument to skepticism about such trust. Sure, Mr. President, maybe you are a good person, and maybe you do have our best interests at heart, but don't take it personally if we double-check you with a few laws.

That is not, to put it mildly, a reading of the constitution popular in the current White House.

Which is why the next president's approach to executive power is so crucial. "Legal specialists," writes Savage, "say decisions by the next president -- either to keep using the expanded powers Bush and Cheney developed, or to abandon their legal and political precedents - will help determine whether a stronger presidency becomes permanent."

So what will be the view of the next occupant of the Oval Office? The Globe questionnaire was answered by all the major Democratic candidates, but only three Republicans: Romney, McCain, and Paul. Giuliani sent in a general statement, offering no details -- but given his Imperial Mayorship, it's not hard to imagine him bringing the same approach to Pennsylvania Avenue. Mike Hucakbee and Fred Thompson failed to respond -- perhaps the former is waiting for a call back from God, while the latter was probably just too busy being not very busy.

For those who did respond, the results were fairly encouraging (although it's easier to not abuse power you don't yet have). McCain, Paul, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson all roundly decried the use of signing statements, while Clinton, Obama, and Edwards condemned Bush's use of them, without ruling out that they themselves would use them.

These eight also expressed reservations about the broad claims of presidential power made by the Bush administration.

And then there was Mitt "We Oughta Double Guantanamo" Romney, who seemed intent on proving that when it comes to executive power, he'd sit at the feet of those great Constitutionalists Richard Cheney, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, and John Yoo.

His philosophy on executive power can be summed up in his assertion that "our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive" -- which has been the excuse for undermining civil liberties through the centuries. Turns out Mitt's not so hot on that whole "Give me liberty or give me death" thing. Which is odd, considering that his dad marched with Patrick Henry in Richmond.

Then there was his response to a question about whether the President can use an interrogation technique that Congress has "prohibited under all circumstances."

Mitt's answer:

"A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique." In other words: "Hey, Congress, take your 'prohibition' and shove it!"

Glenn Greenwald called Romney's stance "an astonishing assertion -- that the Terrorists will win if Mitt Romney expresses his views on whether the President must obey the law."

Then there is this:

Q: "Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?"

Mitt's answer:

"The President must carry out all of his duties in a manner consistent with the rule of law, whether it is our Constitution or valid international agreements, so long as they do not impinge upon the President's constitutional authority."

And who would decide whether these "rules of law" and "international agreements" impinge on President Romney's authority? Mitt didn't say, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be the Supreme Court.

But take heart, in answer to a question about the president's power to detain U.S. citizens without charges, Romney allowed, "All US citizens are entitled to due process, including at least some type of habeas corpus."

I actually didn't know there were different types. But, hey, Mitt's a successful businessman, so we should probably trust him.

As I said, the survey showed that unease over the Bush/Cheney embrace of unbridled executive power is not a position that fits the media's favored left-vs-right meme. Ron Paul chided his fellow Republicans' refusal to complete the questionnaire: "What are they trying to hide? Why are they embarrassed to answer the questions?" And McCain flatly stated, "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."

That's a more unequivocal stance than that taken by some of the Democrats. It's probably no surprise that Clinton, as Savage put it, "embraced a stronger view of a president's power to use executive privilege to keep information secret from Congress than some rivals."

And on signing statements, Clinton answered: "I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution."

Okay, but, again, who will be the one to decide what provisions "contradict the Constitution"? Hillary and Bill?

Edwards and Obama also refused to completely rule out using signing statements -- and on the question of whether he would follow a Congressional law limiting troop deployments, Edwards answered: "I do not envision this scenario arising when I am president."

But I urge you to read the whole thing for yourselves. As Obama stated in his questionnaire: "These are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility -- particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this administration."

Let's make it one of our New Year's resolutions to find out where the candidates really stand on these key constitutional issues -- lest this "sleeper issue" stays slumbering and we awake to another presidential nightmare.

Comments

[otiswaynehale]

Shrub has dishonored the very document that defines The United States of America. And this chickenshit legislature lacks the cojones to prosecute him and Cheney. We need to throw all the bums out and begin with a new slate. I watched my hero, Kinky Friedman, on cspan tonight(a rerun), and he truly defined the dipshits who are determining the future of our children and grandchildren; Politician: Poli=Many & Tick=bloodsucking parasite. That just about sums them up. We need people to represent us who are not wrapped up in their own egos. This country needs a leader; we do not need a bunch of corporate hooligans and thugs pushing us from behind into some Nazi-like state. Oh yeah, Arianna, happy new year, and thanks for the forum. If we are ever in the same space, I will always have your back, my friend.

[eplebneesta]

What happens to everything that Bush has hidden under the "Executive Privilege" blanket if he leaves office? Can all that the administration has hidden be used against them? Can the people forced to NOT testify be made TO testify? I imagine they thought they could count on the "permanent Republic majority" to ensure that the increased unitary executive power would be inherited by equally, or, Odin forbid, more, corrupt NeoConTerrists who would continue the cover-ups. But now that they've alienated the majority of the populace to the point where the Dems look likely to win the White House next year (voting shenanigans notwithstanding), how vulnerable will they be? IMHO there is evidence of numerous crimes, up to and including international war crimes.

And if they will be vulnerable, how will the following figure into things?

1) Bush's ability to define circumstances resulting in martial law.
2) New laws making it legal to move troops into states without governors' permission.
3) The dramatically reduced National Guard Forces.
4) The precedent of using mercenary forces as legitimate US Armed Forces.
5) Control of the largest mercenary force on the planet.
6) Stacked SCOTUS.
7) Domesticated military commanders.
8) Politicized DoJ (despite Gonzo's departure.)

These are just a few random facts that have come to mind.

--
E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Stop the Neo Red Menace.
Always say "Bush's War." Never allow the war (AUF, actually) to be disassociated from Bush.

[chrysalis]

I appreciate the lack of Hillary bashing and the absence of free publicity for Obama that I see so much in the Huff post. I keep looking for substance in Obama and I can't find it. An empty suit seems an apt description. Now I find out he is a hypocrite. He is taking big bucks from financial institutions, lobbyists and special interest groups while claiming he is not. He chides Hllary for her ties to big business while he takes their money too. Hypocrisy and lack of substance in Obamam keeps me a firm Hillary supporter. She has knowledge, substance and she brings a strong work ethic...all indicators that she is much more than an empty suit. Some say that Obama's special interest group financers are doing so that he may win the primary and be defeated easily by the repubs. Right wing conspiracy theories have never surprised me. We need someone to stand up to them. VOTE HILLARY plus we get Bill. I could not stand Obama's emptiness and monotone in my living room every night on the news. The dynamism is with Hillary not Obama.

[gdwtch52]

Until the congress stands up to the unconstitutional behavior of the current administration, we can expect ANY of these candidates to use the same methods. Impeachment is not just to condemn and hold accountable the Bush/Cheney debacle, but to put the reins back on the office of the President for the future. No impeachment? No HOPE!

[Qbear]

IMAGINE Democrats weilding CHENEY-POWERS.

Seems we lost track of what became of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Limpbaugh, Miss Matt Drudge, Bill Kristol, Bret Humes, Grover Norquist Krauthiemer...and the weirdest thing, none of their lawyers have had word one about their where-abouts.

[Qbear]

Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, Rush Limpbaugh, and Tony Perkns are having repeated NIGHT SWEATS imagining Edwards, Obama or Clinton having CHENEY-POWERS.

[Qbear]

In the event of a Hillary vs. Huckabee race in 08...watch for Cheney giving up IMPERIAL presidential powers hand over fist. First to go is Rendition and Secret Prisons.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls...DICK!

[Truth789]

Arianna, there were no real stabs at Hillary and no lifting Obama up for no reason. Thank You!

[GQB]

I've been saying for a year that if I could put a question to the candidates, it would be:
1) What will you do to roll back the 'unitary presidency' as implemented by Bush/Cheney?
2) Will you propose and support legislation to declare presidential signing statements to carry no legal weight?
3) Will you propose and support legislation to once and for all define 'executive privilage' as only relating to matters of national security, which must be nevertheless confirmed as such by proving the national security needs to the congress.

[cblcar]

Clinton, Obama & Edwards have NOT committed to not using presidential signing statements. They each hedged their bets when asked about them. Joe Biden has said straight out that HE WILL NOT use signing statements, that they subvert the Constitution and separation of powers. You want more of the Bush doctrine of more and more executive power, vote for one of the "top three". You want to restore the principles of our founding fathers, vote Joe Biden.

[Savanarola]

The sleeper issue? Wrong. The sleeper issue will be the fact that the arrogation of power by the Idiot Prince was well known but that no one gave a shit while America burned!

[MajorKong]

Don't worry. If we get a Democrat in the White House, suddenly the GOP will be all about "checks and balances". Just like how they came to suddenly love the filibuster.

[Stevelagain]

What happened to the democratic party that told us they were fiscally responsible? Here it is spending more than the republicans, massively spending on pork, and refusing to even work on a balanced budget. And you folks say...give them decades to get around to it?

What happened to the democratic party that told us they would provide national health care? not one bill? not one committee to even start to work on it? Not one bit of effort to bring both sides together at a table and start working it out? Why do you folks support this total failure to follow though?

What happened to the democratic party that accused the republicans of not fixing medicare? Where is the committee that the democrats have set up to fix Medicare?

Why does the left support a do nothing democrat congress with usless slogans like "it will take decades".

Well, since they REFUSE TO START it may take GENERATIONS at this pace! They are failing us, you are COVERING for them.

Stop it! Tell them you have had enough of that failure.

The next time Reid or Pelosi come over here to pander to you with anti war crap....slam them with their failure to move these important domestic issues. Deliver a message to them....the left will not longer cover for them no matter what, the left wants things fixed like Medicare, Social Security, National health care, balanced budgets and you wont accept this failure of an agenda from them anymore.

Or, could it be, those issues mean nothing to you folks? Heaven help us.

[Stevelagain]

Arianna,

I'm seriously hoping that some day you will hold democrats accountable for massive spending, runaway pork barrel spending, No balanced budget, no fix for medicare, no fix for social security (an easy fix I hear), not securing our southern boarder, no work on national health care.

I mean common. They get a total pass for doing nothing of real value if they squawk about the war? This congress has failed us massively and you are protecting them. People are BORED with the war. The SURGE worked and your side is standing their with egg on their face. Harry Reid comes on this board, pumps Bush hate and gets a free ride on Medicare, out of control spending, health care.....they didn't even try. They didn't even form a committee to work on this stuff.

Kick them for not working on the major domestic issues of our time. Go get them. Must we silently accept this failure year after year?

[moonglowsun]

The Bush legacy will haunt us for decades maybe even centuries to come. Signing Statements are but one of the diseases infecting the Executive Branch. Add to it the idea of Executive Privilege to hide the gutting of our Constitution and the committing of numerous other crimes, not to mention their cover-ups, which should impel the creation of an amendment addressing required transparency and accountability and heavily restricting the use of Privilege as an excuse.
The idea of "cronyism" also should be addressed. Look at the deep web of lies we as Americans have endured in the last seven years. I liken it to the soldier who would fall on his sword for his king. Or better yet, the crimes covered up by a corrupt court system as were those of the 60's-70's in the deep south where justice meant the color of your skin.
I, for one, am sick of the rhetoric we're fed on how we must promote democracy in countries like Iran or Iraq and even Pakistan. Let's clean up our own backyard first before we preach to others. Does anyone wonder why we've lost credibility on the World Stage?