See also: Imperial Presidency 101
The most dangerous branch of government, from the perspective of civil liberties, is unquestionably the executive branch. Sure, legislators can pass a bill that violates civil liberties--but the executive branch has to enforce it. And the executive branch will often find ways to enforce laws that haven't technically been passed by the legislature.
I get a lot of flak for pointing out similarities between the Bush and Clinton administrations, but the similarities are there. Worried that Bush might bomb Iran? How worried were you when Clinton bombed Iraq, a suspected terrorist site in Sudan, and--accidentally--a Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Or maybe you're worried about Bush's support of torture. It's certainly worrisome; it was also worrisome when Clinton pioneered the practice of extraordinary rendition, or when the presidents preceding him authorized U.S. forces to teach Latin American guerrillas how to torture people at the School of the Americas.
So just as the solution to monarchy is representative government, not better kings, the solution to an overreaching executive is checks and balances, not just a different executive. An ideal scenario, to my vantage point, would be to revise the Constitution to permanently reduce the power of the president to a level comparable to that of a prime minister. The strong-executive model places entirely too much power in the hands of one person, and I would love to see it revised and replaced with a more parliamentary model that gives citizens and their elected representatives more control over the government's decisionmaking progress. Certainly, at the very least, the president's authority to wage war without congressional approval needs to be curtailed.
But those changes are unlikely because presidential candidates of both parties oppose them, so I'll settle for the next best thing: Not expanding the unwieldy power of the presidency even more. To that extent, I need to oppose--and we all need to oppose--the line-item veto, which gives the president unparalleled power to intervene in the legislative process, unbalancing legislative compromises and creating more unfunded mandates.
George Will makes a strong case against the line-item veto in a Washington Post column this week ("Line-Item Foolishness"):
See also:
|
I get a lot of flak for pointing out similarities between the Bush and Clinton administrations, but the similarities are there. Worried that Bush might bomb Iran? How worried were you when Clinton bombed Iraq, a suspected terrorist site in Sudan, and--accidentally--a Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Or maybe you're worried about Bush's support of torture. It's certainly worrisome; it was also worrisome when Clinton pioneered the practice of extraordinary rendition, or when the presidents preceding him authorized U.S. forces to teach Latin American guerrillas how to torture people at the School of the Americas.
So just as the solution to monarchy is representative government, not better kings, the solution to an overreaching executive is checks and balances, not just a different executive. An ideal scenario, to my vantage point, would be to revise the Constitution to permanently reduce the power of the president to a level comparable to that of a prime minister. The strong-executive model places entirely too much power in the hands of one person, and I would love to see it revised and replaced with a more parliamentary model that gives citizens and their elected representatives more control over the government's decisionmaking progress. Certainly, at the very least, the president's authority to wage war without congressional approval needs to be curtailed.
But those changes are unlikely because presidential candidates of both parties oppose them, so I'll settle for the next best thing: Not expanding the unwieldy power of the presidency even more. To that extent, I need to oppose--and we all need to oppose--the line-item veto, which gives the president unparalleled power to intervene in the legislative process, unbalancing legislative compromises and creating more unfunded mandates.
George Will makes a strong case against the line-item veto in a Washington Post column this week ("Line-Item Foolishness"):
The line-item veto expresses liberalism's faith in top-down government and the watery Caesarism that has produced today's inflated presidency. Liberalism assumes that executive branch experts, free from parochial constituencies, know, as Congress does not, what is good for the nation "as a whole." This is contrary to the public philosophy of James Madison's "extensive" republic with its many regions and myriad interests ...Also making an argument against the line-item veto is Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution:
After a century of the growth of presidential power and after eight years of especially aggressive assertions of presidential prerogatives, it would be unseemly to intensify this tendency with a line-item veto. Conservatives used to be the designated worriers about the evolution of the presidency into the engine of grandiose government. They should visit the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives building on Constitution Avenue. There the Constitution is displayed under four large glass plates. Almost half of the glass is required to cover just Article One. That concerns the legislative branch, which is the government's "first branch" for a reason.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.This is why the Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act in Clinton v. New York (1998). But could the Constitution be amended to permit the line-item veto? Potentially--especially in a scenario where Congress and the president happen to belong to the same political party, as members of Congress tend to have an exceptionally short memory when it comes to expansion of executive branch power.
See also:
- About the Presidential Veto (Robert Longley / About.com: U.S. Government Info)
Comments
Civil Liberties said: Certainly, at the very least, the president’s authority to wage war without congressional approval needs to be curtailed.
I don’t disagree. But such is already the law. The Congress has the power of the purse. Every day we’re in Iraq (for example), we’re there because Congress has provided the funds for it.
Also, the Constitution already grants Congress, not the President, the authority to declare war. That provision was put in the Constitution for good reasons. Unfortunately, Congresses in recent decades have neglected their constutitional responsibilities in this area, effectively allowing the executive branch to usurp power. And that’s one reason we’re in a huge mess right now.
The real issue is what are the powers of the President? and should the Constitution be completely re-written to allow for the faster decisions that must be accomplished in the future, but with improved controls. And what are the Civil Liberties of the individual and what are the Rights of the state over these Liberties? This since all the cases before the States and Supreme Court questions: what is the intrepretaion, or who is the intrepreter, of the key parts of the Constitution?
Note that the Korean War was not authorized by Congress. And no one in the US government knew anything about the promises made by FDR in his secret communications to Churchill and Stalin, or actually most decisions made by FDR did not included anyone. (Both sources:Truman’s, Memiors)