There was a time not so long ago when liberals bristled at what they felt was the over-reach of the Executive branch.
NY Times, Jan. 29, 2007
But Mr. Cheney told only half the story. Congress has war powers, too, and with 70 percent of Americans now opposed to President Bush’s handling of the war, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, it is becoming more assertive about them. Congress is poised to pass a resolution denouncing the troop increase. Down the line, Congress may well consider mandatory caps on the number of troops in Iraq, or setting a date for withdrawal.
If it does, we may be headed toward a constitutional clash, with the administration trying to read powers into the Constitution — as it has with its “enemy combatant” doctrine and presidential “signing statements” — that the Founders did not put there. The Constitution’s drafters were intent on balancing power so no one branch could drift toward despotism. The system of checks and balances that runs through the document divides the war power between the president and Congress.
Check and balances, you say?
NY Times, July 23, 2007
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”
Detested kings, you say?
That was different. Now, “the foetus of monarchy” is entirely acceptable now that Obama is President.
Mr. Obama got fed up, finally, last fall, according to Mr. Savage’s article, and the result was the “We Can’t Wait” project, which has led to dozens of executive actions on a range of issues, including jobs for veterans and fuel economy standards.
Unlike the Bush/Cheney team, Mr. Obama did not take office with the explicit goal of creating new powers for the presidency. That was not part of his agenda. Moreover, his executive actions often are more modest in their effect than the White House’s public relations team might admit.
Government by executive order is not sustainable in the long-term. Nor is it desirable, whether you agree or disagree with those orders. But in this particular case, there may be no alternative.
There’s no alternative when Congress refuses to give Obama everything he wants?
The Times was cheerleading for even more government by Obama Executive Orders:
President Obama has often issued executive orders to get around recalcitrant Republicans in Congress or to clarify existing policy. Yet there are some areas where the president has been too reticent. The start of a new year is a good moment to point out some matters ripe for executive action.
All in the name of unilaterally establishing a Progressive Agenda, of course.
Obama is creating new powers for himself. He is bypassing Congress. He is rewriting law. The Constitution spells out the powers of the Presidency:
1.Conduct foreign policy
2.Command the armed forces
3.Appoint federal judges and other government officials
4.Veto congressional bills
Bush was interested in winning a war. The continuation and expansion of the Patriot Act and expansion of wiretapping vindicates Bush. Obama is interested in one thing- expansion of the democrat base.
Liberals object to Executive Orders from a Republican President but love them from a liberal democrat. You can cut the hypocrisy with a knife. Then again, you can’t spell hypocrisy without the letters l,i,b,e,r,a,l,s and n,y,t,i,m,e and s.
image courtesy Jon McNaughton