> -----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. 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). 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. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
