----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:26 PM Subject: RE: VP not part of Executive Branch?
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger >> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 8:48 AM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: VP not part of Executive Branch? >> >> On the other hand, you have the theory of the "unitary executive," >> the >> assertion of unheard-of "war powers," and a bunch of other >> indicators >> pointing toward an idea of an absolute monarch who can say, >> "LItat, cest >> moi." > > This is a tremendous overstatement. Heh! I don't think anyone who is feeling reasonable would cast this as anything other than a polemic. But I think it is important because of the growing numbers of people who are coming to believe in this and similar polemics and abandoning belief in polemics that would support VP Dick. > For example, the war powers that 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). In one instance Bush may be seen as grasping for power similar to Lincolns, and that is the controversy that surrounds the status of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees (and possibly American citizens who are detainees.....it is as I said a controversy). > > 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. Bush's stand on signing statements is very controversial and is fodder for the potential constitutional crisis I am suggesting may be occuring. > > 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. I think that is just good sense on the part of the courts. > > 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. To some degree those challanges 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. > > 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. An accurate summation of the state of things in my view. > > 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. > There may well be signs of Bush weakness in that arena, but I think events show that Bush is simply out of step with his own party. Rather, he is in opposition to his own party. In this particular instance, it is like the head of the snake has been cut off and the head then proceeds to attack the tail. xponent Rattler Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
