markwayne (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} markwayne) wrote,@ 2008-02-13 23:42:00 |
|
Autumn surprise 2008
I can't shake it. The image of Cheney declaring martial law. A dead president. A terrorist act. Suspended elections.
I know. I'm ready for the aluminum foil pyramid hat. Institutional am I.
Why? Why expend great effort and spill tankers of blood, real and political, expanding the power and reach of the executive to a degree in rate and extent heretofore unmatched in American history? Why set about developing the "unitary executive" in practice, minimizing by ignoring the power of congress to legislate through executive signing statements? Why?! If you're just going to let all this power pass to the Democrats on 20 January 2009?
I can't figure it.
I don't think a serious argument can be forged against the notion that the Bush administration has greatly expanded the power of the executive. Signing statements alone gets you there. But then there's (in no particular order) recess appointments, extraordinary rendition, violation of criminal statutes against the ordering and use of torture, warrantless surveillance, and most significant for our AS08 (Autumn Surprise 2008) scenario -- "The National Security and Homeland Security Directive" issued by Bush 09 May 2007.
The ostensible (and incredibly naive given all the Bush administration's givens) reason for this statement's issuance is, according to Mike German, ACLU policy counsel, harmless: “All it does is establish that they should have a policy and coordinate that policy with legislative and judiciary. It doesn’t change the order of succession, or anything like that.” -- as Matt Rothschild quotes in The Progressive. Despite German's nonchalance, Rothschild's uncomfortable. It might have something to do with this wording from the statement:
Basically saying that Bush controls "a cooperative effort" among the three branches. Why? Out of politeness or "comity." He's under no obligation to be bound by the constitutionally mandated powers of the judicial or the executive. But he'll be polite.
This is disturbing. But I think something can be done to stop this. It starts with pushing Rep. Paul's [R-TX] HR 3835 bill through the House Judiciary subcommittee on consitutional affairs where it now languishes. This bill merely reaffirms existing constitutional law. You can sign the American Freedom Campaign's Freedom Pledge. It's worth something, however precious little.
Maybe most effectively, we call for the Congress to pass legislation forbidding the prevention of elections under almost any event -- short of attack by the duly constituted military of another nation. Like Canada. I've got my eye on you Canadians.
It's probably not going to happen -- but why take the chance?
MarkWayne
I can't shake it. The image of Cheney declaring martial law. A dead president. A terrorist act. Suspended elections.
I know. I'm ready for the aluminum foil pyramid hat. Institutional am I.
Why? Why expend great effort and spill tankers of blood, real and political, expanding the power and reach of the executive to a degree in rate and extent heretofore unmatched in American history? Why set about developing the "unitary executive" in practice, minimizing by ignoring the power of congress to legislate through executive signing statements? Why?! If you're just going to let all this power pass to the Democrats on 20 January 2009?
I can't figure it.
I don't think a serious argument can be forged against the notion that the Bush administration has greatly expanded the power of the executive. Signing statements alone gets you there. But then there's (in no particular order) recess appointments, extraordinary rendition, violation of criminal statutes against the ordering and use of torture, warrantless surveillance, and most significant for our AS08 (Autumn Surprise 2008) scenario -- "The National Security and Homeland Security Directive" issued by Bush 09 May 2007.
The ostensible (and incredibly naive given all the Bush administration's givens) reason for this statement's issuance is, according to Mike German, ACLU policy counsel, harmless: “All it does is establish that they should have a policy and coordinate that policy with legislative and judiciary. It doesn’t change the order of succession, or anything like that.” -- as Matt Rothschild quotes in The Progressive. Despite German's nonchalance, Rothschild's uncomfortable. It might have something to do with this wording from the statement:
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches [...]
Basically saying that Bush controls "a cooperative effort" among the three branches. Why? Out of politeness or "comity." He's under no obligation to be bound by the constitutionally mandated powers of the judicial or the executive. But he'll be polite.
This is disturbing. But I think something can be done to stop this. It starts with pushing Rep. Paul's [R-TX] HR 3835 bill through the House Judiciary subcommittee on consitutional affairs where it now languishes. This bill merely reaffirms existing constitutional law. You can sign the American Freedom Campaign's Freedom Pledge. It's worth something, however precious little.
Maybe most effectively, we call for the Congress to pass legislation forbidding the prevention of elections under almost any event -- short of attack by the duly constituted military of another nation. Like Canada. I've got my eye on you Canadians.
It's probably not going to happen -- but why take the chance?
MarkWayne
