Long-term legacy of Bush Admin on the balance/separation of powers

[Merijeek]

@Shodan

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.

So we can get your “position” in advance, will you support or attack a Democratic president who uses signing statements as Bush has?

-Joe

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jayjay

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?

If he won’t, I will, or at least point out the hyperbole in “on a scale that no prior president has even come close to.” Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus comes to mind.

[spifflog]

@Shodan

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

Concur. You’d think Bush was right of Stalin and all dems are choir boys from reading most posts on this site if one didn’t know better. But I digress. . .

All Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, want as much power as they can get. Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy, weren’t all that shy themselves. They have had ideas in their heads for years that they want implemented, and they want as little as possible standing in their way.

[jayjay]

@Bryan Ekers

If he won’t, I will, or at least point out the hyperbole in “on a scale that no prior president has even come close to.” Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus comes to mind.

In a time of “war or rebellion”, which is allowed in the Constitution. It can be argued that we are not “at war” in any official sense, and most certainly not in rebellion (yet). The criminality emerging from the White House in the last 7 years has no precedent. It makes Nixon look like an embarrassingly inept Boy Scout. And it’s not underlings, as previous recent ‘most corrupt administration’ comparisons have to be to come under that banner. It’s coming from the top, Bush and/or Cheney.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jayjay

In a time of “war or rebellion”, which is allowed in the Constitution. It can be argued that we are not “at war” in any official sense, and most certainly not in rebellion (yet). The criminality emerging from the White House in the last 7 years has no precedent. It makes Nixon look like an embarrassingly inept Boy Scout. And it’s not underlings, as previous recent ‘most corrupt administration’ comparisons have to be to come under that banner. It’s coming from the top, Bush and/or Cheney.

Fine, you have an arguable claim that it’s the worst administration in history. Just don’t claim it’s the worst by some huge amount.

[John_DiFool]

@BrainGlutton

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?

This is precisely what scares me about Hillary, that she will take these precedents and run with them.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

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.

So what? The question is not how the Doper community will respond, but what he/she will or won’t get away with in Washington.

[AskNott]

Last night, I got around to viewing a recorded *Bill Moyers Journal * that first aired last May. Moyers was talking with a professor of constitutional law and a guy who wrote a book called The Genius Of Impeachment. One of the points the author made was that almost all of the expanded presidential powers had gone unchallenged. That means they still stand, and this bigger presidential toolbox will be passed to the next president. The candidates can pledge not to use those tools, but unless somebody takes them to court, the president after that will still have those tools to use. In 2012, or sooner, we could have another imperial president

[Hamlet]

@Mosier

Presidents have greatly exceeded and expanded on the constitutional power of their office for awhile. The pendulum always seems to swing back, though.

One of the things that swings the pendulum back are acts of Congress, such as enacting FISA to counter Nixon’s wiretapping, or Supreme Court cases, such as Youngstown Steel.

What this administration has done is not just try and expand presidential power, but did so regardless of what the other branches have done. Breaking the law, avoiding court rulings, ignoring statutes, and signing statements are all show that, whereas many other Presidents (like Reagan) at least paid lip service to separation of powers and not being above the law, this administration doesn’t even do that.

Short term effects concern me greatly, especially when you look at what the current crop of right wing Presidential candidates are saying about Presidential power (good article can be read here. The long term effects will be decided by the people (if they elect more authoritarians like Romney and Guiliani), Congress (if it ever gets a goddamn spine and stops letting the President do as he/she wishes for fear of being labelled soft on terror), and the Courts (if any subsequent administrations have the balls to put their arguments forward in court instead of running from rulings any way they can).

[Shodan]

@BrainGlutton

So what? The question is not how the Doper community will respond, but what he/she will or won’t get away with in Washington.

Then why did you raise the question?

@Merijeek

So we can get your “position” in advance, will you support or attack a Democratic president who uses signing statements as Bush has?

I will probably take the same attitude towards a Democratic President using signing statements as you do for Slick Willie using them.

I’ll support him (or her) when right, but not otherwise.

Although I can pretty well predict that when and if some Democrat uses a signing statement, the response of the Usual Suspects will be [ul][li]deafening silence, or [*]the hamsters will labor under the burden of the rationalizations if someone slips up and mentions it[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

I’m thinking we will be hearing a lot of things to the effect of ‘Well, BUSH did it…’. I’m already re-calibrating my irony meter in the expectation of what looks to me to be an almost certain Democrat victory. Should be…interesting…around here in the next few years.

-XT

[Evil_Captor]

@Little Nemo

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.

Exactly. All any Dem administration that wants to curb Presidential powers has to do is try to exercise them as Bush has exercised them, and the Supreme Court will wake up and take notice.

[XT]

:dubious:

-XT

[John_Mace]

@jayjay

In a time of “war or rebellion”, which is allowed in the Constitution.

I think if you check, you’ll find that there is more to it than that. Hint: It’s in Article 1, not Article 2. Do you know what Lincoln did when a federal court ruled his action unconstitutional? Hint: He ignored the ruling.

@BrainGlutton

And what about the vice presidency? Will the next VP get what Cheney has made his own...

Why on earth would the next VP have the same role as Cheney? I mean, come on BG. The president gets to decide the VP’s role. If President Obama/Clinton/McCain/Romney wants his or her VP to have X amount of authority, he or she will have X amount of authority.

[John_Mace]

@xtisme

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

I want a piece of that action, too!

People seem to forget that signing statements go back to none other than George Washington. And think about it: a president has to interpret the law, so would we be better off if Bush just went ahead and interpreted the law they way he was going to do so and didn’t tell us? If he interprets the law in a way that you think is incorrect, and you are affected by that law, then you can take him to court.

[Little_Nemo]

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.

Clinton and Bush did not do the “exact” same things. Clinton’s signing statements were general statements of how he intended to carry out a law. Bush’s were how he planned on circumventing a law. Bush did this, confidant in the fact that he had a Supreme Court with seven Republican justices and a Congress that wasn’t conducting a standing Special Investigation on him.

[John_Mace]

@Little Nemo

Clinton and Bush did not do the “exact” same things. Clinton’s signing statements were general statements of how he intended to carry out a law. Bush’s were how he planned on circumventing a law.

Cite?

[John_Mace]

Hey, Little Nemo. Guess which White House Council issued this in a memo:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

Then why did you raise the question?

You raised the question of the Dope’s reaction; I raised only the questions in the OP.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Although I can pretty well predict that when and if some Democrat uses a signing statement, the response of the Usual Suspects will be [ul][li]deafening silence, or [*]the hamsters will labor under the burden of the rationalizations if someone slips up and mentions it[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

In the link in post #29, HRC defends the use of signing statements where some part of a bill is “unconstitutional.” (Implicitly, in the president’s judgment.) Based on that, I won’t be surprised if she uses them, pretty much the same way Bill did – but not the way W has. Still, her statements in that article bring her down in my estimation relative to Obama.

Someday the SCOTUS is going to have to take a fresh look at this and draw a line on what signing statements can and can’t do. The sooner the better, IMO.

[Shodan]

@BrainGlutton

You raised the question of the Dope’s reaction; I raised only the questions in the OP.

I see. So when you asked the questions of the Dope, you weren’t really interested in the reactions of the Dope. Got it.

In the link in post #29, HRC defends the use of signing statements where some part of a bill is “unconstitutional.” (Implicitly, in the president’s judgment.) Based on that, I won’t be surprised if she uses them, pretty much the same way Bill did – but not the way W has.

Would you agree that it was proper to use a signing statement when it “announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision”? Is this “a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority”?

After all, your own cite mentions

By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges

So it seems that Bush is doing exactly what you would support if Hilary did it - issuing a signing statement when a law (in the President’s opinion) encroaches on the Constitution.

Or are you claiming that Obama would not challenge a law that he felt was un-Constitutional? And this makes you think more of him?

Regards,
Shodan