Presidential power

The Blog Cenk Uygur: The White House Threatens to Ignore Congress The Huffington Post

This has been bouncing around in my brain for a while--the following seem to be common premises of contemporary thought on the "right":

Premise #1: It is unpatriotic, if not outright treasonous, to impede the President's ability to protect the nation in a time of war.
Premise #2: Criticism of the President impedes his ability to protect the nation.
Premise #3: The nation is currently in a state of war.
Conclusion: Criticism of the President in a time of war is unpatriotic, if not outright treasonous.

Now, I personally think all three premises are debatable, but for this little exercise, let's take everything as true.

Let's change it up a little:

Premise #1: It is unpatriotic, if not outright treasonous, to impede the President's ability to protect the nation in a time of war.
Premise #2: Impeachment of the President impedes his ability to protect the nation.
Premise #3: The nation has been in a state of war with Al Qaeda since 1996.
Conclusion: Impeachment of the President in a time of war is unpatriotic, if not outright treasonous.

I still don't agree with #1, #2 could be taken as a matter of common sense, and #3 is pretty much a matter of record. So see, Republicans are even less patriotic than Democrats! Or something like that.

So what's my point? Hell if I know. I guess I just want to stop the name-calling that is still going on, even in 2007. Nobody did enough to prevent 9/11 or to deal with the aftermath, neither Clinton nor Bush, so let's move on. The Bush administration keeps saying something to the effect that "9/11 changed everything," but no one ever asks them to elaborate on that point. What exactly changed after 9/11, other than our smug sense of security, and how does it justify such radical changes in the balance of power between the branches of government? If the terrorists hate our freedoms, how does one justify radically changing the nature and applicability of those freedoms?

Since I already brought up Bill Clinton...in for a penny, in for a pound. So all you administration-supporting, Iraq-war-supporting folk out there, imagine all the acts taken to broaden executive authority in the wake of 9/11...taken to broaden executive authority in the wake of the 1998 embassy bombings.

Unitary executive with the authority to override acts of Congress...what if Bill Clinton did it?

Executive with the authority to intercept phone transmissions without any resort to FISA courts or other oversight...what if Bill Clinton did it?

Authority solely vested in the executive to determine who is and is not an enemy combatant...what if Bill Clinton did it?


Just a thought.

Seriously, though, ask yourself if, in 1998, you would have been okay with that.

I don't think you would have.

So why is it okay now?



Please, tell me I'm wrong, then tell me why I'm wrong. Convince me. I dare you.



"When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., et al v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-38 (1952, J. Jackson, concurring)