The Bush Administration has claimed an expanded role for the presidency that would have made Nixon blush: The power to enact what amounts to an irreversible line-item veto through presidential signing statements; the unitary executive theory and all of its implications; an unprecedented degree of partisan politicization of executive departments; obsessive secrecy, resistance to Congressional oversight, and frequent invocation of executive privilege; etc. None of this has yet been resolved by a confrontation in the courts or in Congress. Assuming that remains so for the rest of W’s term (and I see no reason to expect otherwise 
), what will be the power position of the next POTUS and future POTUSes relative to Congress (and to the executive departments)? Can we expect a rollback, or will the next president grab on all these powers and make it stick?
And will the next VP inherit (and manage to keep) the vastly expanded role of the vice-presidency as it has developed under Cheney?
Assuming the next administration will be Democrat, imagine the uproar from Republicans if the status remains quo and we get a Dem who tries to take advantage of the newly expanded powers.
Barack Obama has promised to go over the changes to the executive with a fine-toothed comb and make it constitutional again.
…and imagine the uproar from the Democrats (assuming one is in the top spot next term) if the Republicans try and reverse on said expanded powers. Personally I’m not seeing that what Bush has done is all that unprecidented…and by the same token I think that if/when a Dem is in office then this supposed increase of powers will be A-OK all of a sudden. I can’t imagine, say, the OP busting President Obama’s chops for using the same things Bush has been using for the last 7 years, for instance.
Time will tell I suppose…
-XT
It would be unprecedented if a President rolled back powers. Every President so far has expanded Presidential powers. However, I am terrified of what a President Giuliani would do with such expanded powers.
Presidents have greatly exceeded and expanded on the constitutional power of their office for awhile. The pendulum always seems to swing back, though. Think of the REALLY power-abusive presidents, like Lincoln and Jackson.
If you include the caveat ‘voluntarily’ then my comment is…exactly.
I’m not particularly worried about any of these guys. I think our system is robust enough that while it may bend from time to time it isn’t going to break. Bush has showed me that even pocket lint in the top spot is really not going to do much of a muchness. YMMV but I’m not particularly terrified regardless of if it’s Obama, Clinton…or even Ron Paul…in the top slot. I think the system will bump along fine regardless.
-XT
>Think of the REALLY power-abusive presidents, like Lincoln and Jackson.
Exactly! This is a problem with Republican presidents! Good point!!
Um…Jackson wasn’t a Republican. He was a Democrat.
-XT
Yet you accept that presidential powers can be expanded from one administration to the next and never reduced. Doesn’t that have a dangerous tendency?
Not particularly, no. And I didn’t say that Presidential powers can only be expanded, never reduced…YOU are saying that. I think that there is a constant struggle between the various branches of government to expand their various powers. That’s why we HAVE a separation of powers…and a checks and balances system. It makes for incredibly wasteful government…but it prevents any real threats to the system from within. Nothing Bush has done has been particularly radical, regardless of the hand wringing and ranting about Bush tossing out the Constitution, etc etc. He hasn’t done much more than many other presidents have during their terms…and actually less than a couple of presidents did. Yet the system rumbled on despite what was done in the past…and it will rumble on despite Bush as well. Perhaps there will be a counter swing in the pendulum of power back away from the Executive Branch now and the next few presidents will have more limits put on them…or perhaps not. Depends on the political situation after Bush…and what the next administration does or doesn’t do.
-XT
He can have whatever he wants passed then make a signing statement exempting himself.
Well no…in reality he can’t. I mean in REAL reality that is…gonzo-reality perhaps is different so YMMV.
-XT
And what about the vice presidency? Will the next VP get what Cheney has made his own – the expanded policymaking role, the huge staff, the man-sized office safe, the silver death box, the quantum-indeterminate executive/legislative-branch status?
Plus control of the Vice-Presidential Action Rangers, did I mention those, mm-hmm, I’m sure I did.
My guess is that the first time President Clinton or President Obama tries to submit a signing statement declaring how they plan to interpret a law, the Supreme Court will finally wake up and Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas will issue a decision saying that signing statements are completely unconstitutional and have no legal weight.
Would you be willing to bet on that? 
My guess is that nothing remotely like that will happen…though I bet Republicans howl nearly as loud as Democrats have been over Bush doing the same thing.
-XT
President Clinton has already submitted signing statements. And yet the Republic survived. Of course, if Bush does the same, the Usual Suspects hear the thundering jackboots of facism.
:shrugs:
A Republican President who does what Bush has done will be savagely attacked on the SDMB; a Democrat who does exactly the same things will be hotly defended.
Regards,
Shodan
Are you seriously trying to say that Bush hasn’t played very fast and loose, on a scale that no prior president has even come close to, with his Consitutionally mandated executive power?