In the mood to start a debate...
here's a way to do it. Two nights ago, Olbermann said this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/
Read it. He doesn't mince words. And I don't disagree. Maybe the idea will catch on now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/
Read it. He doesn't mince words. And I don't disagree. Maybe the idea will catch on now.
It seems to be a very popular conservative opinion that the president's rule should be absolute (which I find odd coming from the supposed smaller-government group). That view point is completely outside the intentions of the framers of the constitution. Granted, they were smart enough to know that they don't know everything, which is why the document was designed to be a living, growing thing.
Should Bush have pardoned Libby? I think it was, to some degree, a good move for him. I mean, he may only have a 26% approval rating, but that 26% wanted him to do it, so he did it. Did more people then that 26% think he should have pardoned Libby? Probably. I, however, agree with what Olbermann said in that the president should have the force of character to rise above party lines and do what's right for the country. Now, that's not always in line with what people want (because, let's face it, most people aren't educated enough [and I'm not saying that I am] to know what good foreign policy really is or what good economic policy really is), but when only 1 person in 4 in your country thinks you're doing a good job, then it's time to re-evaluate your policies and make changes. With the apparent split between liberal and conservative, I think that if you can hit the 50% mark or higher, then you're not doing bad.
I think we (the liberalista, as Colbert would put it) wanted someone whose policies were liberal. We chose Kerry, a dude from Massachusetts (because, let's face it, you don't get much more liberal then that without dropping into the Socialist parties, and no one, not even me the professed socialist, wants that). He was a smart guy, and I liked him politically, but conservatives and some moderates felt like his whole campaign was "I'm not Bush" which, while more then enough for me, was not enough for them. Besides, statistically speaking, there's a large (like 10 or 20 percent) segment of the country that vote for the sitting president just because he's already in power. It didn't help matters that Kerry had the charisma of a piece of wood (and, as much as I hate it, image is huge in the media-fried culture we've developed here). The thing here is that we tried to make a change. Did we pick a guy that could beat Bush? We didn't know the answer was no when we put him up, but unfortunately, no, we didn't. Can anyone that voted for the coked-up, gun-toting, cronyist, poor-people-hating cowboy we have had to deal with for TWO terms say the same thing? No, they can't.
Reply
The Constitution doesn't give exceptional powers to the President? The President:
- Can grant pardon or reprieve for any federal crime anyone has committed (except cases of impeachment), whether or not they've even been charged with it. The courts have decided that this power is pretty much otherwise unlimited.
- Is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. They all do whatever he says. Constitutionally, Congress' control over the armed forces is limited to paying for them and declaring war. The courts have never really determined what exactly "declaring war" means, and Congress has never really not funded the military. Constitutionally there's a lot of question over whether or not Congress can legislate the use of the armed forces in any way. I would expect and hope for any president to ignore the Constitutionallity of legislation controling the use of the armed forces, forcing the Supreme Court to get involved.
- He selects all federal judges and ambassadors. He can also fire any member of the executive branch without consent from Congress, which is pretty huge.
- He is responsible for all foreign diplomacy, except that the Senate must agree to any treaties.
- He can call congress to session if he thinks a special session is necessary.
- Is responsible for the execution of any and all laws. Think about that. Congress passes the law, but the President is responsible for making it happen. Tremendous power.
The President's powers are otherwise easily controled by Congress, should they actually want to do so. I think the Supreme Court's opinion in the Hamden case (spelling? The first case they heard about indefinite detention of enemy combatants in the War on Terror, anyway) explains the situation very well. SCOTUS said that
1) In times of crisis, the President should be given the broadest possible lattitude to act in whatever manner he thinks is necessary to protect the nation.
2) When the immediate crisis has passed and the country has had time to adapt to whatever the crisis was, the President is required to follow whatever laws Congress should pass that do not infringe on his Constitutionally granted powers.
3) Short of any laws passed by Congress, however, the President may continue to keep acting as he did at the beginning of the crisis.
Reply
So while I don't think the President is always almighty, I think that in today's situation until Congress passes legislation telling Bush he can't do something anymore that he has been doing, he can keep doing it. For example, I'm amazed they haven't done anything about GTMO. Pass a law giving all of those people speedy access to civilian courts already, guys. Note also that I don't think Congress can force the President to pull troops out of Iraq, regardless as to how they phrase it. Or if Congress doesn't like all these warrentless wiretaps, pass a law completely blocking them in every way and requiring every government agency to disclose to a special committee of Congress every activity they participated in that involved warrentless wiretaps so that Congress can be sure the new law is being followed. Really, any law that you're not happy with, blame Congress. It doesn't matter which party is in charge of Congress, laws are always their fault.
Re Para 3:
The president's job isn't to do what people want. It's to do what he thinks is best. I don't want the president to always do what the majority of the citizens want. I've read in a couple of places (on the internet, so it must be true) that Libby's prison sentence was pretty harsh for what he actually did. On the one hand, don't fuck with federal attornies, or you get crap like that. OTOH, one of the reasons the president has that power is to be able to check an overzealous judiciary. I don't think I agree with what Bush did in this case, but I don't want future presidents to worry about commuting the wrong person's prison sentence will result in calls for their resignation, either. Events like this are the price you pay for a faster, more responsive government (in theory, anyway).
Re Para 4:
My point regarding putting Kerry up against Bush was mainly that for all the unhappiness people have with Bush now, in 2004 he was more popular than Kerry. If your goal is to just keep Bush from getting elected, put a charismatic moderate up for election. All the liberals and half the conservatives will vote for him and Bush would have gotten crushed. If, OTOH, you wanted a real liberal (well, a real liberal using today's meaning, anyway), then you wanted a more charismatic Kerry. I know you play the cards you're dealt, and from what I remember Kerry was better than some of the other people running. The problem was that Kerry's potential voters, the democratic party, was too fragmented. Some just wanted not Bush and others wanted a liberal. The liberal-wanters kept a moderate from getting the party nomination and the moderates kept Kerry from getting elected. *shrug* Blame the democrats.
Reply
Leave a comment