RE:
http://www.military.com/opinio...15202,195599,00.htmlquote:
What could be worse than killing U.S. service people and innocent Iraqis? The unitary theory of the executive, that's what.
I can think of few things more criminal than knowingly sending our troops into battle without
justification, causing the deaths of thousands of our servicemen & women, tens of thousands of wounded, 100k+ of Iraqi dead, untold numbers of Iraqi wounded, and a foreign policy disaster never seen in our national history. That doesn't count the extraordinary financial burdens, or the loss of readiness of our troops (reported to be the lowest since Viet Nam, according to the JCS) - and thats just off the top of my head.
Fortunately, there is no statute of limitations for these crimes.
quote:
Dick Cheney came into office believing that executive power had been excessively eroded during the Vietnam and Watergate years. Few reputable scholars believe this nonsense. Most presidential scholars have concluded that the executive branch has grown in power vis-à-vis the other governmental branches since the turn of the 20th century, but really got boosted to an "imperial presidency" during the Cold War from the Truman presidency onward. This development is a far cry from the legislative-dominated system that the nation's founders and the Constitution envisioned. The slight rollback of executive power during Vietnam and Watergate was only a momentary pause as the executive juggernaut rolled forth up to the Bush administration.
How ironic - he didn't feel that way when he was in congress. That shouldn't be much of a surprise.
quote:
Cheney's advocacy of the unitary theory, and evidently convincing his self-interested boss to buy into it too, meant that the administration believed that it could use broadly construed commander-in-chief powers -- another anathema to the founders -- to ignore congressionally passed laws during "wartime." In dictatorships, we call this "rule by decree." So the administration's willful violation of laws had the more sinister purpose and effect of establishing a "hyper-imperial presidency." This is the single most important thing that the Bush administration did in office and the worst. We can already see that in the Obama and probably future administrations, executive self-restraint will be much harder in the face of the temptations of this more powerful inherited office, which will be based on the Bush-era precedents. Fear for the republic.
President Bush did say that it would all be much easier if the presidency was a dictatorship. But he couldn't have done it without the collusion of the republican houses of representatives that failed to curb the excesses (to be generous) of the executive branch, and otherwise ultimately failed to perform thier fiduciary duty (no matter how aggregious the offense, number of signing statements, etc). That short-sighted congress had repeated the same mistakes over the years, always believing that it will only be them that gets to take advantage of whatever idiotic maneuver they conjure up.
For example, years ago when the republicans created the line-item veto, it never occurred to them that Bob Dole would lose the election - but he did, and that gave Bill Clinton the Line Item veto that he used aganist them until the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional.
I hope this administration restores restraint - and if it doesn't - perhaps the congress will.
But I'm not holding my breath.
