The Kingly Powers
I think that in the long term one of the most devastating things about the Bush administration has been the incredible expansion of presidential powers under the theory of "the unitary president." That theory wasn't invented by this administration (I don't think anyone within that cadre is smart enough or creative enough to have come up with the concept), but it surely got refined the last eight years to the point that a Treasury Secretary has just been handed $900 billion by Congress (with more in the pipeline) to spend without any kind of real restrictions.
Dana D. Nelson, a professor of American studies at Vanderbilt University, had an interesting opinion piece in today's Los Angeles Times about the concept and its profound dissonance with the scheme of government set forth in the US Constitution. The good professor points out that the theory of the unitary executive got its start under Reagan, and slowly expanded under the current president's father (Bush 41) and under Clinton (who also used signing statements). However, during the nearly eight years of the current administration it really took off to the point that Congress has little left of the powers granted it by the Constitution because Congress itself has ceded many of those powers to the executive branch. Nelson points to one key reason that expansion was able to take place:
Unitarians (for lack of a better word) want to expand the many existing uncheckable executive powers -- such as executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements -- that already allow presidents to enact a good deal of foreign and domestic policy without aid, interference or consent from Congress. Ardent proponents even insist that there are times when the president -- like a king -- should operate above the law. ...
One problem is that presidential unilateralism can seem reassuring in times of crisis, so it often receives congressional support. Most recently, in the name of managing our fiscal crisis, Congress has granted unprecedented powers to the executive and to an unelected and unaccountable secretary of the Treasury. [Emphasis added]
That there is a connection between crisis management and the willing ceding of powers by the legislative branch to the executive branch is clear, but what Prof. Nelson does not make clear is that those crises of the past seven-plus years have either been ginned up or over-emphasized by the canny cabal now running this country.
The AUMF was not initially intended to extend to a country that the administration knew full well had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11, yet the invasion of Iraq provoked only one or two outcries. The deplorable excesses of The Patriot Acts (both I and II) and the erosion of FISA came as a result of an administration which cried "wolf" and then preached fear in order to shred the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Military Commission Act was passed to keep those held at Guantanamo Bay (many of whom did nothing to merit that detention) in Guantanamo Bay forever, lest they attack the US once released.
Nor has Congress even begun to raise any serious objections to the other tools being used by the administration. Executive orders, many of which were issued in secret, and signing statements which declared the President would decide whether the bill being enacted would be executed or ignored, have changed the entire landscape of the federal governance while Congress took impeachment off the table and kept its powder dry.
What Prof. Nelson does make clear is that once that power has been ceded, it is difficult to wrest it back, even after the end of an administration which has taken and used those powers so disastrously. What is especially troubling is that there has been little discussion of the issue during the current election campaign. Sen. Biden did make a cryptic reference to the concept of the unitary president, Sen. McCain has said he would eschew signing statements, and Sen. Obama has stated that he would continue the signing statements but would not consider them to have the effect of law. But no one in the press our at "town hall meetings" has even bothered to raise the issue with the candidates for president.
And that suggests to me that once again a lie, in this case the kingly powers of the presidency, has been repeated so often that it is now accepted as a truth.
Dana D. Nelson, a professor of American studies at Vanderbilt University, had an interesting opinion piece in today's Los Angeles Times about the concept and its profound dissonance with the scheme of government set forth in the US Constitution. The good professor points out that the theory of the unitary executive got its start under Reagan, and slowly expanded under the current president's father (Bush 41) and under Clinton (who also used signing statements). However, during the nearly eight years of the current administration it really took off to the point that Congress has little left of the powers granted it by the Constitution because Congress itself has ceded many of those powers to the executive branch. Nelson points to one key reason that expansion was able to take place:
Unitarians (for lack of a better word) want to expand the many existing uncheckable executive powers -- such as executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements -- that already allow presidents to enact a good deal of foreign and domestic policy without aid, interference or consent from Congress. Ardent proponents even insist that there are times when the president -- like a king -- should operate above the law. ...
One problem is that presidential unilateralism can seem reassuring in times of crisis, so it often receives congressional support. Most recently, in the name of managing our fiscal crisis, Congress has granted unprecedented powers to the executive and to an unelected and unaccountable secretary of the Treasury. [Emphasis added]
That there is a connection between crisis management and the willing ceding of powers by the legislative branch to the executive branch is clear, but what Prof. Nelson does not make clear is that those crises of the past seven-plus years have either been ginned up or over-emphasized by the canny cabal now running this country.
The AUMF was not initially intended to extend to a country that the administration knew full well had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11, yet the invasion of Iraq provoked only one or two outcries. The deplorable excesses of The Patriot Acts (both I and II) and the erosion of FISA came as a result of an administration which cried "wolf" and then preached fear in order to shred the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Military Commission Act was passed to keep those held at Guantanamo Bay (many of whom did nothing to merit that detention) in Guantanamo Bay forever, lest they attack the US once released.
Nor has Congress even begun to raise any serious objections to the other tools being used by the administration. Executive orders, many of which were issued in secret, and signing statements which declared the President would decide whether the bill being enacted would be executed or ignored, have changed the entire landscape of the federal governance while Congress took impeachment off the table and kept its powder dry.
What Prof. Nelson does make clear is that once that power has been ceded, it is difficult to wrest it back, even after the end of an administration which has taken and used those powers so disastrously. What is especially troubling is that there has been little discussion of the issue during the current election campaign. Sen. Biden did make a cryptic reference to the concept of the unitary president, Sen. McCain has said he would eschew signing statements, and Sen. Obama has stated that he would continue the signing statements but would not consider them to have the effect of law. But no one in the press our at "town hall meetings" has even bothered to raise the issue with the candidates for president.
And that suggests to me that once again a lie, in this case the kingly powers of the presidency, has been repeated so often that it is now accepted as a truth.
Labels: Election 2008, The Unitary President
posted by Diane at 4:55 AM
4 Comments:
We've become a nation of sheep.
It's time for a change.
~
We have truly a Roman Senate, worthy of a horse, or an ass, as a sitting member. With finger-waggers like Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel, it's no wonder the bushies have been able to walk off with the country. Why stick up for our right, or the constitution, when it's more lucrative to bow to the lobbyists? But there's more than just sheer greed. I really think the legislators were threatened, as in being shown pictures of their children going to school. Senator Leahey saw one of his aides murdered, and surely not by Bruce Ivins. The Kennebunk Cabal has always thrived in the realm of extortion, bribery, and death. It may be understandable why the Legislature is so weak-kneed, but appreciating this doesn't really help us to solve the problem, since the watchdogs have collectively turned their backs.
I think the unitary president way predates Reagan. FDR certainly tried very hard to (and did) expand the president's powers, and very much enjoyed acting in a unitary fashion. When the Supreme Court threw out much of his New Deal as unconstitutional he tried to pack the court by increasing its size to 13, with him getting to pick the new four justices. Luckily he was stopped. He also overthrew the tradition of presidents being limited to 2 terms, with devastating consequences. JFK almost openly tried to set up a monarchy/dynasty (Camelot), and even went so far as to appoint his own brother as Attorney General, probably the worst act of cronyism in presidential history, which represented a frightening consolidation of power in a single family. There are many other examples. Truman pushing the National Security Act of 1948, the Patriot Act of its time, for instance. It's been building up for a very long time, under both parties, and isn't going to be reversed very easily, if at all.
No president since Washington ever returned to the Legislative any powers they arrogated for whatever purposes they were required. The (partisan) Legislative is almost powerless to "wrest" powers back.
Post a Comment
<< Home