This is a tremendous overstatement. For example, the war powers
Bush claims are powers with strong precedence. In particular, Lincoln
serves as
the precedence for the wide ranging power of the Commander-in-Chief.
The
powers he assumed as president were overwhelmingly greater than any
president before, and since (with FDR coming the closest).
If you look at Bush's spying on Americans in historical context, you
will
see that it is far less extensive than that ordered by the unelected
Hoover.
This also dovetails with the idea of the unitary executive: all
executive
powers flows from the president of the United States. In its
reasonable
formulation, it claims that the bureaucracies do not have independent
power
to act, they act under the supervision of their boss: the POTUS. They
have
no independent power, unlike state offices in Texas.
When this theory becomes problematic is when Congress authorizes
agencies to
do specific things, the law is signed, but the POTUS is opposed to
those
actions. In its most unreasonable form, this view is that the inherent
power of the chief executive to run the executive branch as he sees
fit, no
matter what laws are passed by Congress.
There is a balance point, which is usually found in the tug of war
between
the executive and legislative branches. When push comes to shove, the
courts step in, but they tend to let the elected branches of government
fight it out for a while first. This kinda makes sense, since both of
these
branches of government are strongly influenced by what will get them
re-elected.
Historically, the judicial branch also treads lightly when restricting
the
war powers of the president. In WWII, excesses by FDR far worse than
anything we've seen lately were condoned. But, this tendency is not a
blank
check, and we have not seen these excesses become the norm. Indeed,
with
the weakening of the Bush presidency, we see challenges succeed earlier
than
they have historically.
Indeed, Bush is now considered a very weak president. If things
continue as
they are in Iraq through September, there will be enough Republicans
joining
Democrats in the challenge of Bush's policy so that stronger measures
will
pass with 60 votes. Bush may have won the staredown in June (since
Americans were not in the mood to have the funds to the troops in the
field
disappear), but continued failure in Iraq will continue to weaken
Bush's
position.
Indeed, Bush is so weak that he cannot get enough of his own party in
line
to approve a compromise immigration package that the Democratic
leadership
agreed to. He may talk as though he is an imperial President, but his
power
is far less than Clinton's was at the same point in his Presidency. In
short, the system worked, albeit haltingly and imperfectly.
Dan M.
To some degree those challenges are what is weakening the Bush
presidency. Other factors include increased public opposition,
increased congressional opposition, and a dwindling of the ranks of
the "true believers" within the Executive.
Circling the wagons results in smaller and smaller circles.
xponent
Rattler Maru
rob
it looks like the american electorate is finally starting to wake up to
how bush has not only screwed up the war, but really abused his powers.
i don't think the democrats realize how dissatisfied the voters are
with them for not moving faster on the war and the many crimes of the
bush administration.
jon mann
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car
Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
