# "Takeover," by Charlie Savage, and the "imperial presidency" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2008, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350 "2008-02-12T22:11:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/21 "2008-02-13T19:00:43Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [Well, as a matter of fact . . .](http://www.lacosapizza.com/shorris.html) [/QUOTE] _Harumph._ Well…that’s the _last_ thing about which I expected to receive a correction. Being unfamiliar (in the extreme) with Strauss’ work, that was an enlightening article that I would recommend. Of course, it should be pointed out that Shorris makes the case that Straussians are decidedly _not_ philosopher-kings (understood as “rulers that do not desire power”): > [@Earl Shorris](#): > > Judging from the number of quotations and references to the philosopher in their writings, the Straussian worldview appears to have come straight from Plato. But the legacy of Strauss fits better with the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche…The Straussians say the greatest danger to the United States comes not only from weakness in the face of enemies but also from the failure to believe in its own superiority. It is a theoretical problem, they say. The alternative to superiority is the end of ideals, a descent into the comforts of mere being. Nietzsche called the feckless creature who cares for nothing more than preservation of his own skin, wishing only comfort and universal equality, “the last man.” It was his warning to the world. The only alternative to the last man is the will to power, which Nietzsche said is the will to life itself, the will to overcome, to control, to be master of all things. This is the will of the Bush Administration. I also found the following to be particularly noteworthy, especially as I don’t recall Plato endorsing the “noble lie” (slavery, sure; perhaps I need to re-read _The Republic_): > [@](#): > > One of the great services that Strauss and his disciples have performed for the Bush regime has been the provision of a philosophy of the noble lie, the conviction that lies, far from being simply a regrettable necessity of political life, are instead virtuous and noble instruments of wise policy. The idea’s provenance could not be more elevated: Plato himself advised his nobles, men with golden souls, to tell noble lies–political fables, much like the specter of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear bomb–to keep the other levels of human society (silver, iron, brass) in their proper places, loyal to the state and willing to do its bidding…For Strauss, as for Plato, the virtue of the lie depends on who is doing the lying. Finally, I think the following snuggles up cozily to **Hamlet** ’s post, with the bolded part explicitly accomodating **Shodan** ’s flaccid objection: > [@](#): > > In itself power poses no danger to the country or to the world. Power can be used in constructive or destructive ways, and it can be legitimate or not depending upon its origins. Faith, however, has a poor record in the exercise of power, and the contemplation of the perennial problems has not done much better. The Bush regime relies on faith when it can and **reason when it must** , not in the cause of peace or justice but in the pursuit of power. In its use of violence and secrecy, the stick and the lie, it has no end in mind but power. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/22 "2008-02-13T19:11:55Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Which system – the government or the media? [/QUOTE] The system of government with checks and balances, the media should serves as one of the checks and balances. If the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are meant to function as a check and balance of the each other, it can’t work with purchased lawmakers and pervasive corruption aided by a media controlled by corporate interests. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/23 "2008-02-13T19:59:21Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] Yes, yes, you darling little _ingenue_. Because the fact that these five instances slipped by not only conclusively shows that **Hamlet** is spouting “whiny-assed nonsense”, but also demonstrates that this administration has no secrets and is, in fact, a shining beacon of open government with no designs on executive expansion. Philosopher-kings, to the last man. [/QUOTE] Well, that is a bit over-stated. The mere fact that each of the examples cited were demonstrably wrong doesn’t show that the Bush administration is above reproach; merely that much of the criticism leveled is beneath contempt. And that when whiny-assed nonsense is refuted, grotesquely foolish strawmen follow. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/24 "2008-02-13T20:25:54Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Absolutely right. If only FISA warrants had to be submitted to a [a court.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court) [/QUOTE] They don’t if you just [bypass FISA and conduct warrantless domestic wiretaps](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11315.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/25 "2008-02-13T20:53:40Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Well, that is a bit over-stated…And that when whiny-assed nonsense is refuted, grotesquely foolish strawmen follow. [/QUOTE] Just matching (grotesque) strawman for strawman, meeting hyperbolic sarcasm with the same. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/26 "2008-02-13T21:09:45Z")
[QUOTE=pravnik] They don’t if you just [bypass FISA and conduct warrantless domestic wiretaps](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11315.htm). [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a **judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters**. Some of the questions about the agency’s new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said. …The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and **notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court** , the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/27 "2008-02-13T21:39:25Z")
It’s a bit of an odd argument to say that it’s okay to not get a warrant so long as you tell a judge you’re going to do it, but yes, they secretly briefed the presiding judge in 2001. Here’s what he had to say about it: > [@](#): > > A federal judge who used to authorize wiretaps in terrorism and espionage cases criticized yesterday President Bush’s decision to order warrantless surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. > > “We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war,” said Royce C. Lamberth, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington and a former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, speaking at the American Library Association’s annual convention. > > Lamberth, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, expressed his opposition to letting the executive branch decide on its own which people to spy on in national security cases. > > The judge said it is proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. “But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can’t trust the executive,” he said. [Ex-Surveillance Judge Criticizes Warrantless Taps](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301125.html) The rest of them were a little upset when they found out in 2005. One resigned. [Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_pf.html) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/28 "2008-02-13T21:46:41Z")
**Shodan,** attempting to knock holes in others’ criticisms of the Bush Admin is certainly not inappropriate to this thread, but I notice you have not yet expressed, let alone defended, any opinions about the proper role and limits of presidential power, what (if anything) to do about the “imperial presidency,” etc. Do you think you could you try to make some more constructive contributions? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/29 "2008-02-13T21:59:16Z")
I think I’ll post as I please. Thanks all the same. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/30 "2008-02-14T00:26:48Z")
With an intent to convince anybody else of anything in particular, though? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/31 "2008-02-14T01:09:31Z")
Only those capable of rational thought. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/32 "2008-02-14T01:16:30Z")
In response to the OP, I think that it is a genuinely difficult balance. It is true that historically our system has allowed the President to make constitutional judgments about the execution of laws and to expand his Article II powers in times of war. Jefferson, for example, pardoned everyone convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act–functionally ending it even though it wasn’t struck down by the court for 50 years. It is a short jump from pardoning everyone to writing a signing statement saying at the outset that the law will not be enforced in an unconstitutional way. Lincoln took a ton of extra-constitutional authority during the Civil War (though he had the good sense to go back to Congress to get it all retroactively affirmed). There are powerful arguments to be made for this strong executive model, and it is almost certainly what the Framers intended. They wanted three co-equal branches, each swearing an oath to the Constitution and defending it will all the power they were given. The idea that the court’s interpretation would trump the interpretation of Congress or the President was an idea created by the court itself (how convenient, right?). Similarly, the framers feared for our common defense much more than modern interpreters suggest. One might argue–and some very smart people have-- hat the common defense was the primary impetus for the rejection of the Article of Confederation. But the problem with this model is well represented by the current administration. If a President can hoard power in times of a legitimate existential threat to the United States (the civil war), what’s to stop a President from doing so in the face of a non-existential threat (Iraq)? We have developed a system, over time, in which the court’s opinion on the Constitution is elevated above that of Congress and the President, and in which a humble executive is more appropriate than a Lincoln executive. Today, I think a President should enforce the law without regard to his personal reservations until such time as the courts rule on the matter. We live in a time when Congress can be called to session in very short order, when we have a 24/7, constantly alert national security apparatus, and when we can devote enormous resources to planning for unexpected contingencies before they happen. All of this mitigates the need for the kind of executive the Framers initially sought to create: a mold made for a man like Washington, not Bush. I know that doesn’t answer the issue of control over bureaucracy, but this post is already too long. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/33 "2008-02-14T01:32:37Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] If only Hamdi had been able to be heard by the [Supreme Court.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZS.html) [/QUOTE] Regarding Hamdi…isn’t it a little strange to argue that the fact that Hamdi had his day in court exonerates the administration, when the very point that the administration was advocating was that Hamdi wasn’t entitled to his day in court? > [@Shodan](#): > > If only Padilla were allowed to plead [his](http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_1027/) case. Padilla ultimately _wasn’t_ allowed to plead his case - the U.S. Supreme Court never did reach the merits. His subsequent civilian court prosecution was wholly due to a unilateral decision on the administration’s part to transfer him to civilian courts just days before their deadline for filing arguments in the Supreme Court. They did so because they didn’t want the case to go before the U.S. Supreme Court and have them issue a definitive ruling on what the limitations of presidential powers were. > [@Shodan](#): > > Would that [some federal judge](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/national/main3515237.shtml) could affect the status of prisoners at Gitmo even a little. This links to the telecom article again. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/34 "2008-02-14T14:23:07Z")
[QUOTE=pravnik] Regarding Hamdi…isn’t it a little strange to argue that the fact that Hamdi had his day in court exonerates the administration, when the very point that the administration was advocating was that Hamdi wasn’t entitled to his day in court? [/QUOTE] What’s strange is the argument that the Bush administration doesn’t want to argue its case in court, followed by links in which the Bush administration argues its case in court. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/35 "2008-02-14T14:48:08Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] What’s strange is the argument that the Bush administration doesn’t want to argue its case in court, followed by links in which the Bush administration argues its case in court. [/QUOTE] And there’s one of your strawmen – **no one** is arguing that the Bush administration _isn’t_, _can’t_, or _won’t_ argue its case in court. Everyone _is_ arguing that they don’t _want to_, are actively _avoiding_ it, and are also taking whatever (possibly underhanded) steps they can to rig the system. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/36 "2008-02-14T15:42:31Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] What’s strange is the argument that the Bush administration doesn’t want to argue its case in court, followed by links in which the Bush administration argues its case in court. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Yeah, but the fact that they’re still willing to argue a case in federal court isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. Even Nixon did that. The position they argued in Court was that they didn’t have to argue in Court. They stated that the President was entitled to make a determination of unlawful combatant status and indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen without any oversight whatsoever, and that he wasn’t allowed access to counsel or the courts. They were hoping to nip this whole “arguing their case in court” thing in the bud once and for all. That’s a position one can legitimately disagree with without resorting to “whiny-assed nonsense.” Eight of the nine Justices did. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/37 "2008-02-14T15:46:46Z")
And therefore this stuff about how they’re bypassing the courts and imposing rule by fiat is nonsense, obviously. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/38 "2008-02-14T15:56:39Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] And therefore this stuff about how they’re bypassing the courts and imposing rule by fiat is nonsense, obviously. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] In some instances, they _are_ bypassing the courts. _They don’t deny it._ They claim that it’s within the President’s power to do so. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Them](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/898d66/32.png) [@The\_Them](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Them)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/39 "2008-02-14T22:33:33Z")
Brain Glutton, without looking it up, this sounds very similar to a book I read once called “The Imperial Presidency,” or something close to that. It was written in 1987, so it doesn’t cover any Bush administrations. It was COMPLETELY nonpartisan, so nobody need worry that they would be offended. The author made the case that the Executive Branch has been steadily gaining in power, sometimes without even the knowledge of the President. Certainly not something I approve of. “Short of a constitutional amendment?” I have a hard time seeing that. Sometimes, I have a terrible fear that something REALLY godawful is going to have to happen to curb Executive power. Other times, I’m more optimistic. Maybe we CAN get the necessary amendment(s). I sure don’t trust the Democrats to hold back if they have the authority to declare martial law. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350/40 "2008-02-14T22:44:31Z")
[QUOTE=The Them] Brain Glutton, without looking it up, this sounds very similar to a book I read once called “The Imperial Presidency,” or something close to that. It was written in 1987 . . . [/QUOTE] [1973, by Arthur Schlesinger.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imperial_Presidency) Mainly about the Nixon Administration, in which Cheney served. Savage’s thesis – fairly well-documented in his book – is that Cheney deplored the reaction to Watergate that led Congress to rein in the “imperial presidency” and devoted the rest of his public life to trying to restore the presidency to what he – and Nixon – saw as its properly broad powers; getting tapped by W gave him the opportunity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/takeover-by-charlie-savage-and-the-imperial-presidency/437350.md?page=3)