Candidates on Executive Power
So I've been going on about the Bush administration's extraordinary claims (and actions) regarding the power of the Executive Branch for quite some time. A while back, I said every candidate for president in 2008 should be forced to publicly state their position on the power of the executive; anyone who isn't willing to totally repudiate the Bush view is unfit to hold any position in government, much less the presidency.
Here are 2 of the front-running Republicans, going on the record at a conservative get together over the weekend. Rudy Giuliani: I agree with Bush, but, golly gee, I hope not to have to use my superpowers too often. Mitt Romney: Hmmmm, maybe Bush is right; I need to consult my lawyer before answering.
I honestly cannot comprehend how anybody could think it's appropriate for the president -- any president -- to have the power "to arrest U.S. citizens with no review." To me, it's like saying black is white, the Revolutionary War never happened, and the Constitution doesn't exist. What was the point of all that if a single official can deprive any (which is the same thing as every) citizen of his/her liberty without having to bring any charges or otherwise justify that action in any way to anybody?
Can somebody here explain to me what the argument for this is that so many in the GOP seem to find convincing? Seriously. I mean, they don't even seem to think there's anything remarkable about it. To me, it's quite possibly the silliest thing any post-colonial American politican has ever said.
What am I missing?
Here are 2 of the front-running Republicans, going on the record at a conservative get together over the weekend. Rudy Giuliani: I agree with Bush, but, golly gee, I hope not to have to use my superpowers too often. Mitt Romney: Hmmmm, maybe Bush is right; I need to consult my lawyer before answering.
I honestly cannot comprehend how anybody could think it's appropriate for the president -- any president -- to have the power "to arrest U.S. citizens with no review." To me, it's like saying black is white, the Revolutionary War never happened, and the Constitution doesn't exist. What was the point of all that if a single official can deprive any (which is the same thing as every) citizen of his/her liberty without having to bring any charges or otherwise justify that action in any way to anybody?
Can somebody here explain to me what the argument for this is that so many in the GOP seem to find convincing? Seriously. I mean, they don't even seem to think there's anything remarkable about it. To me, it's quite possibly the silliest thing any post-colonial American politican has ever said.
What am I missing?
posted by juvenal_urbino | 1:31 PM
2 Comments:
Seems like they would have thought their answers out a bit more.
Honestly, I don't know of too many people who would be running for president who wouldn't want as much power as possible. It's harder to say, I'll get this-and-this done, when you have to say, well, I mean, I'll get this-and-this done IF congress and I work together. And since a GOP candidate will likely have a DEM Congress... Everyone thinks they wouldn't abuse their powers. At least that's what I'd think -- "I'll only use them for GOOD!"
I'm not saying anything you don't already know. I think it's a reflection of politics in general in the 21th Cen. There doesn't seem to be a great understanding of *why* our government was set up the way it was -- it's more about proving who is right and who is wrong and pushing agendas through.
...other words...I've got nothing.
No, I can't explain it. And if you learn that you are missing something, please share.
I suspect the Republican candidates feel as if they can't criticize this specific area because it would indict the whole party. It happened on their watch.
Post a Comment
<< Home