Walking back the imperial presidency

[sheshe2]

Whether anyone will admit it or not, much of political discourse in this era has moved away from the concept of a democratic republic and towards an imperial presidency. We tend to see that more clearly on the right (ie, Dick Cheney) but the left critics of President Obama exhibit the same thing when they lay all issues at the President's feet, completely ignoring the role of Congress and the people who elected them.

One of the main reasons why I originally signed up to support Barack Obama's candidacy was that I saw in him someone who wanted to reverse that trend. He knows its a long game, but when you really listen to what he's saying, its clearly his overriding concern (especially in this second term).

SNIP

But we must never mistake the boldness of what President Obama is doing. He is slowly walking back the imperial presidency. We've seen that lately in his proposals to finally end perpetual war, to provide more oversight and transparency in our intelligence practices, and now on the question of intervention in Syria.

As a believer in the long game, its clear the President isn't making sudden leaps in this process. That would be foolish - especially given the lunatic caucus that currently holds power in the House of Representatives. But he is certainly working to change the course our ship of state has been on lately. That, more than anything else, is why I support him. This Community Organizer-in-Chief is the perfect leader for these times.

MORE;
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/09/walking-back-imperial-presidency.html

It's time for Congress to stand up and take responsibility for this Nation and the people that they are sworn to protect. They are duly elected to perform a job for it's people. It's past time that they do it.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[Cha]

2. "Let's have this debate".. from your link, she ..

"Those who don't understand the primacy of restoring our democratic processes seem stunned that this morning Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated exactly what President Obama said yesterday...that he has "the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization," but is choosing not to use that authority. After all, that's not a "manly" thing to do (and is therefore inconceivable) - which is why some on the right are calling the President's position "weak."

Not exactly "weak" when you're PBO and want to get all the Legislative Branches involved in this decision. And, that means the whole country because people will be contacting their Reps, no doubt. The President has made his case as to why he wants to hold Assad accountable and now it's up to Congress and those they represent.

Thank you for the OP from smartypants, she.

[sheshe2]

7. Yes, let's have that debate, Cha.

We have the Legislative Branches, yet one refuses to do its job. They act like children and bullies. They sit and snicker, high five each other and defy the President. They wanted to make him a one term President.

Guess which person is doing their job? You are right, it is the president!

Vote them out! 2014! GOTV!!!!!

[rhett o rick]

17. Does this mean that the President will honor the decision of Congress? nm

[Bonobo]

3. His use of signing statements completely belies that interpretation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/obama-ndaa-signing-statement_n_2497828.html

Obama's NDAA Signing Statement May Undermine Whistleblowers, Members Of Congress Say

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of lawmakers concerned about whistleblower protections in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) say President Obama is unnecessarily trying to end-run those safeguards, and they are asking him to instead abide by the letter of the law.

Obama issued a signing statement circumventing the NDAA's whistleblower protections, saying he would interpret the law in a way that still allowed the heads of federal agencies to "supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress" if those communications "reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential."

In a Thursday letter to the president obtained by The Huffington Post, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) noted that Congress had already carved out exceptions for employees working in intelligence, rendering the president's signing statement unnecessary.

Congress had inserted language into the NDAA extending whistleblower protections to 12 million employees of federal contractors. Those measures would apply to Defense Department contractors, subcontractors and grant recipients permanently and to other federal agency contrators as part of a four-year pilot program.

[sheshe2]

4. This is about whistleblowers and not the OP.

I would need more time to look at all the statements and the facts. While I have great respect for Cummings. I have no respect for Grassley and most certainly not Issa. They are concerned with not wasting taxpayer dollars?????????????? Seriously! After millions have been wasted on ACA votes and Issa's witch hunts on this President.

Bad analogy , Bonodo.

I will wait for the debate.

[Bonobo]

11. Your OP was about walking back the imperial presidency.

One of the signature features of the concept of unitary executive is that the POTUS powers extend beyond that of an equal branch of govt.

Unitary executive theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The unitary executive theory is a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President controls the entire executive branch. The doctrine is based upon Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President.
Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine.[1] It can be said that some favor a "strongly unitary" executive, while others favor a "weakly unitary" executive.[1] The former group argue, for example, that Congress's power to interfere with intra-executive decision-making (such as firing executive branch officials) is limited, and that the President can control policy-making by all executive agencies within the limits set for those agencies by Congress. Still others agree that the Constitution requires a unitary executive, but believe this is a bad thing, and propose its abolition by constitutional amendment.[2]

Contrary to claims of some authors,[18] the first administration to make explicit reference to the "Unitary Executive" was not that of President George W. Bush. For example, in 1987, Ronald Reagan issued a signing statement that declared: "If this provision were interpreted otherwise, so as to require the President to follow the orders of a subordinate, it would plainly constitute an unconstitutional infringement of the President's authority as head of a unitary executive branch."[19]

[sheshe2]

15. "theory"

The unitary executive theory is a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President controls the entire executive branch.

see post#10.

[rhett o rick]

21. I doubt that the president controls the executive branch. Looks to me like the NSA has a lot

of control.

[KittyWampus]

19. So, Bonobo. The fact is Obama has on two instances checked his own executive power-

ONLY YOU are presenting the argument he has completely changed the dynamics.

THat is called a straw man.

[Bonobo]

22. That's not what a straw man is. nt

[NealK]

6. +1 n/t

[KittyWampus]

20. -1. Straw Man

[NealK]

30. Lol!

[gopiscrap]

5. yes I truly hope this is one of the outcomes of this event

[DissidentVoice]

8. I think one problem is that we have the head of state and head of government in one person

In Germany, the Bundespraesident (Head of State) and the Bundeskanzler (Head of Government) are two different people. The Bundeskanzler (chancellor) largely runs the government.

In Ireland, the President is Head of State, but the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) is Head of Government.

In the UK, the Queen is Head of State. The Prime Minister (Head of Government) is responsible to Parliament (and the electorate) and runs the government. The Queen rarely intervenes; she has loads of "reserve powers" but by convention rarely uses them.

In Australia, the Queen, through her appointed Governor-General, is Head of State. The Prime Minister is Head of Government. What applies for the UK largely applies here, except for Sir John Kerr in 1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

Much the same goes for Canada and New Zealand.

The Scandinavian monarchies (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) are similarly structured.

The United States is the only "Western democracy" I can think of where the Head of State and Head of Government are the same person.

Despite our much-vaunted idea of "checks and balances," that means there is very little check on a President's power. What are "reserve powers" in the other countries mentioned are almost daily practice for a U.S. president.

[sheshe2]

10. No "check and Balances"?

For example, the president is named by the Constitution as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, giving him an incredibly powerful position in times of war. The Framers worried that the president's wartime role was too powerful, in fact, and thus gave Congress a powerful set of checks and balances on the president's war powers. Only Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war. Perhaps even more important, only Congress has the power to pay for wartime expenses. That means that if the president tries to launch an ill-advised military escapade, Congress can effectively pull the plug, forcing the president to bring his troops home by refusing to fund their continued deployment.

Another example: the president can veto acts of Congress. Thus if the executive tries to pass laws that the president believes are unconstitutional or even just bad policy, the prez can whip out his red veto pen and prevent the bill from becoming law. The veto is perhaps the president's most powerful means of checking and balancing Congress… so powerful, in fact, that the Framers gave Congress a method to re-check the president's veto power. (A two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress can override a presidential veto, allowing a bill to become law even over the president's objections.)

And a third example: the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, meaning it can overturn laws it rules to be unconstitutional. Even if the president and Congress agree to pass and sign a piece of legislation into law, the Supremes can toss it out if they feel it runs afoul of the Constitution. Neither the president nor Congress has any power to override a Supreme Court decision, but the executive and legislative branches still do have important levers to check and balance the judiciary, mainly by influencing who gets to serve on the Court in the first place. Every Supreme Court justice has to be selected by the president, and the Senate also has to approve of the nomination; the idea of this system is to give the other branches a chance to prevent judicial tyrants from making it onto the bench in the first place.

More here~

http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/checks-and-balances.html

[DissidentVoice]

24. On paper and in practice are often two very different things

We have not actually had a constitutionally-declared war since 1941. However, we have been in a lot of wars since then.
Korea (UN "police action&quot - 1950-1953
Vietnam - 1955-1975
Grenada (invasion of a British Commonwealth country, which incensed Margaret Thatcher) - 1983
Panama (getting Manuel Noriega) - 1989
"Desert Shield" - 1990
"Desert Storm" - 1991
"Allied Force" (NATO war against former Yugoslavia) - 1999
Afghanistan - 2001
Iraq - 2003

...and many more I've missed, including covert support to "regime change;" i.e., support for dictatorial regimes that were "anti-Communist" (Batista, Fujimori, Pinochet, etc.).

The veto power is probably the most effective in actuality of the three you mentioned.

Judicial review...I think you know as well as I do that it's stacked in favour of whatever party has stacked the SCOTUS with its preferred justices.

The only real tool against a President overstepping his/her bounds is impeachment/removal, which has never occurred. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but not removed.

[MrModerate]

12. Except, in actual practice in Australia . . .

The Queen's position as head of state is never exercised. (There is a Governor-General, supposedly the embodiment of the Queen, in a role more like — but less than — the Vice President in the US.)

Effectively, the presiding PM (currently Kevin Rudd, at least until next Saturday, when he's expected to be turned out of office) is head of both governnment and state.

[DissidentVoice]

23. I get that

Which is why I included the fact that the last time the Governor-General intervened directly was in 1975.

[MrModerate]

27. And the outcome was disastrous . . .

So I don't think the current GG will be doing much more than attending garden parties and cutting the ribbon on new dog parks.

[DissidentVoice]

34. I wonder if it's like in Canada

I live near the Canadian border.

A lot of (especially younger) Canadians aren't even aware of what the GG does.

Older ones feel some consternation about that.

Quebec is another matter entirely...

On paper it seems like an excellent office...non-political, there to act as a REAL check and balance if need be, but of course I know that the way things work on paper and in reality are often very different.

[MrModerate]

36. The office is purely ceremonial, and blessedly politics-free . . .

But if the GG attempted to excercise her rights to dissolve parliament, she'd be run out of the country.

[DissidentVoice]

38. Even the Queen doesn't do that in the UK...I don't think a reigning monarch has done that since 1835

In Fiji, it was done by the Governor-General, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau (1987) trying to uphold the democratic Government of Fiji.

He got forced out (and later became the country's first President!) and Fiji got booted from the Commonwealth.

However, they still retain the national flag with the Union Jack, they call Queen Elizabeth II "Paramount Chief of Fiji" and still retain monarchist symbols on their military insignia, just like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica.

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=1202

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=2353

Go figure.

I remember the 1999 "Republic" vote in Australia...that could turn out messy if/when another was to be held, because I remember reading that even if the Republic were ratified nationally, each State also has to do so, and some could choose to retain the Monarchy.

Still, knowing that the GG has the right, even if they're not used, is kind of a check in itself, at least in a psychological/historical sense.

[MNBrewer]

9. Lol... both sides do it! Left critics to blame!!!

[sheshe2]

13. Well~no. This was a link at the article I posted.

Obama Is Giving Up Some Executive Power, and He’ll Still Get No Credit

Predictably, everyone is unimpressed by the measures Barack Obama has announced to bring a little ray of transparency to America’s surveillance programs. The New York Times editorialized that the president’s proposed changes “only tinker around the edges” of our “abusive” surveillance programs. I wouldn’t argue that the proposals will fundamentally remake the surveillance state. But nevertheless, I think it’s pretty remarkable that a president, any president, announced, without absolutely being forced to, a series of steps that relinquish some degree of executive power. Of course he’ll get no credit for that, because civil libertarians tend to be absolutists and other liberals tend to be afraid or even terrified of their wrath. Why this is so tells us some important things about contemporary liberalism.

Snip//

As I was listening to these remarks, I kept thinking to myself about this paradox. No, they were not “bold and sweeping” proposals. At the same time, it sure seemed to me like this was the first time in my adult life I’d ever heard a sitting president propose checks on his administration that he didn’t have to offer. And Obama didn’t have to offer these. He was facing some political pressure, but polls have been pretty consistent in showing that a solid majority of the American public comes down on the side of what we might call controlled surveillance.

There was no mortal threat to his presidency here. Yet even so, he took a couple steps away from the imperial presidency. I think that’s the first time since the presidency became imperial—after World War II, more or less—such a thing has happened. And Obama was, as he claimed Friday, headed down this course before the Snowden leaks. Those began on June 5. But on May 23, he gave a speech at the National Defense University in which he foreshadowed the moves he just announced. Combine all this with John Kerry’s recent announcement that we have a plan for ending drone strikes in Pakistan, and you might have thought liberals would be cheering.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/obama-is-giving-up-some-executive-power-and-he-ll-still-get-no-credit.html

[morningfog]

14. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

How can he simultaneously propose to finally end perpetual war, while the the article is based on his push to start a new one?

Nothing was walked back here. Obama was forced to go to Congress because his choice of war is so roundly unpopular.

[sheshe2]

16. You say war.

A strike is not a war. I wish we did not have to make this choice. Yet how can we not act in some way?

Do you accept, condone behavior that is considered morally offensive? Assad's gassing his people.

I don't want to fight with you morningfog. I just want to know what you believe. Do we sit back on our chairs and do nothing?

[morningfog]

18. There is much that can be done between "nothing" and war.

And a strike is an act of war. The objective, as stated now, is far too amorphous and ill defined as to have an end point.

What was done, and is being done, is reprehensible. It is wrong and disgusting that it has happened in 2013. It could be argued that a strike on Assad is morally correct. But, it is not legal under international law. Syria is embroiled in a very violent and disturbing civil war with multiple parties. I can't say that the rebel groups collectively or individually are any better than Assad. He just happens to have the nastier weapons. The US has no role in this fight. Over 100,000 people have died in Syria. I lament the loss of all civilians from all sides.

That is why I think that, not only would it be illegal under international law but, it would be an immoral act as well. More civilians will die directly during our attack and in retaliation. We know Assad is willing to do anything to stay in power. But, his days are numbered. Now is not the time for us to throw bombs into a burning war.

If the UN were on board, I would still be against it. It will only result in greater loss of life.

What can we do? Support the weapons inspectors. Support wider inspections and dismantling of the chemical weapons programs. Support political solutions, to the extent possible. Let the civil war be fought by the people of Syria. First and primarily, we should do no harm. I don't think we can use our military without doing harm.

[DissidentVoice]

25. Unilateral action is dangerous

Even George W. Bush had Britain and Australia (among others) on board for his vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Of course, it later cost Tony Blair and John Howard their jobs.

When we went into Afghanistan, it was in response to an attack, which meant that virtually all our allies (NATO, ANZUS) were with us.

This time Britain has even said no.

[Cha]

26. But, France has said yes. Go figure.

[DissidentVoice]

35. I can't figure that out either

Especially given that France has, after Britain, the strongest military in Western Europe (although Germany comes close, Germans are understandably touchy about deploying their armed forces in anything but a purely defensive role, and ESPECIALLY not outside of NATO or the UN).

Also, their membership in NATO is kind of a "cafeteria" membership...they participate when they like and don't when they don't.

[Marr]

41. Was Pearl Harbor an act of war? /nt

[grasswire]

28. oh, the blogger whose greatest wish is to be a princess and do nothing.

Again?

[NealK]

31. Hey, show some respect for princess Smartypants!1!!

[HooptieWagon]

29. He hasn't walked it back one iota.

He's doubling down on it.

[Precisely]

32. Whose war is it really?

[99th_Monkey]

33. K & R ~ nt

[Savannahmann]

37. And if Congress believes that we should not take action in Syria then what?

If Congress votes down the authorization, then do we shift and support the imperial presidency? Or do we tell President Obama that Congress has spoken, and through them the American People?

This OP has the assumption that Congress will vote for the authorization, and I'm not sure they will, my read is that they won't in fact. Here in Georgia, two Democrats, we don't have many, have said no. One said I don't know, and one has said nothing on the matter yet. The last is my rep, and I've faxed him a letter urging him to vote no.

If Congress votes no in a bipartisan manner, as now seems to be the case, how does that play into your imperial presidency OP?

[Marr]

39. An epic example of self-serving bullshit.

She's claiming this latest imperial adventure is an example of an egalitarian Obama attempting to be more democratic? And the critics of this proposed militaristic pelvic thrust are just too unthinkingly subservient to power to see His wisdom?

Forgive me, but it's hard to type and laugh at the same time. The writer is a buffoon.

[woo me with science]

40. Now *that* was some Orwellian doubleshit.

This president has claimed the right to imprison indefinitely, to maintain "kill lists," to bomb unilaterally with or without congressional backing or declarations of war, to imprison journalists and whistleblowers, to surveil the country...

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
And Obama is walking back the Imperial Presidency.

[Vinnie From Indy]

42. I do not see much progress in walking back the powers of the President under Obama.

I think Pres. Obama is laying this at the feet of the Congress more for political cover due to the very small amount of public support than any attempt to walk Presidential power.

Cheers!