>> You mean the one you are ignoring?
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
Bush's constitutional violations pose dilemma for Republicans
April 21, 2006, 9:04 pm
By David Adler
Republicans, and particularly those who regard themselves as
Originalists in matters of constitutional interpretation, that is, those
who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the
intentions of the Framers, find themselves on the horns of a dilemma.
President George Bush has put them there with his extravagant claims to
presidential power that are not, in any way, shape, or form tethered to
the text of the Constitution or the values, concerns and aims that
shaped Article IIā?"the Executive Article. It is high time for members of
the GOP to decide which commands their greatest loyalty: the president
or the Constitution.
The dilemma stems from the fact that the president has advanced
sweeping assertions of authority as Commander in Chief that have
launched presidential power on a trajectory toward the realm of
illimitable and unaccountable executive power, the nether world of
American Constitutionalism.
The president, according to the Bush Administration, may initiate
preventive
war and institute domestic surveillance of American's telephone calls and
e-mail messages, all without specific congressional authorization.
It is contended that the president may designate, seize and detain any
American citizen as an "enemy combatant," and imprison him in solitary
confinement, indefinitely, without access to legal counsel and a judicial
hearing.
Further, it is argued that the president possesses the authority to
suspend the Geneva Convention and federal laws that prohibit torture.
Among other powers asserted, the president, as Commander in Chief, may
establish military tribunals, terminate treaties, order acts of
extraordinary rendition, and take actions that he perceives necessary to
the maintenance of national security and the common defense.
Under this theory, any law that restricts the Commander in Chief's
authority
is
presumptively unconstitutional. At all events, it is claimed, the
president may exercise an "override" authority in the unlikely event
that Congress would by statute seek to restrain the president.
It is likely that the Anglo-American world has not heard such raw
assertions of executive power since Oliver Cromwell anointed himself
"Lord Protector" of England.
President Bush's contentions are, to borrow from the title of John Dean's
book, "Worse than Watergate."
President Bush ascribes to the Commander in Chief powers that were
never possessed by the executive when the post was incor****ated into the
Constitution, and which may not be engrafted by a theory of a
presidential power to revise the meaning of the Constitution.
Bush's assertions soar beyond the modest authority assigned by the
Constitutional Convention to the Commander in Chief. All assertions of
the president's power as Commander in Chief must begin with Alexander
Hamilton's explanation in Federalist No. 69 that the president's
authority would be "much inferior" to that of the English King, and that
"it would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction
of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the
confederacy."
Of course, no "first General" may pretend to exercise
the bundle of policymaking powers advanced by President Bush.
The Framers of the Constitution did not create the office of
Commander in Chief. They borrowed it from the English who had
introduced the post in 1639 in the First Bishops War. The title was
assigned to the ranking military officer in each theater of battle.
That officer was always subordinate to a political superior, usually a
King, Parliament or Secretary of War.
The title carried with it no authority to commence war, and it entailed no
authority to make foreign policy.
That understanding was embraced by the colonists during the
Revolutionary War when the Continental Congress appointed George
Wa****ngton to be General and Commander in Chief. His appointment
provided that he would be accountable to Congressā?"his political
superiorā?"and that he would be required to execute directions and
instructions imposed upon him by Congress.
The Framers of the Constitution were thoroughly familiar with this
practice and that explains why there was virtually no discussion of the
Commander in Chief Clause. The title inspired no fear of the legal
authority that the president would derive from it, and it generated no
dispute. The lone concern expressed by delegates to the various state
ratifying conventions was that a president might assume personal command
of an army and engage in a coup against the government.
But those fears were swept aside by guarantees that Congress could control
the Commander in Chief. Hamilton's speech in Philadelphia captured the
essence of the president's power as Commander in Chief: When war is
authorized or
declared by Congress the president has the authority to conduct it,
although he is subject to instructions issued by Congress.
In addition, the president has the duty to repel "sudden attacks" on the
United States. But the office grants to the president no authority to make
foreign policy.
The nation's first Commander in Chief, Wa****ngton, was likened
to Cincinnatus for his refusal to claim unlimited powers. But today,
that modesty has been replaced by George Bush and his Cromwellian
pretensions.
Republicans: Will you pledge allegiance to the Constitution, or to George
Bush?
David Adler is a political science professor at Idaho State University.
|
