All the PresidentÂ’s Privileges

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
June 23, 2012

[h=1]All the President’s Privileges[/h] [h=6]By ROSS DOUTHAT NEW YORK TIMES EXCERPT (Emphasis throughout is mine):[/h] WHEN George W. Bush was president of the United States, it was an article of faith among liberals that many of his policies were not just misguided but unconstitutional as well. On issues large and small, from the conduct of foreign policy to the firing of United States attorneys, the Bush White House pushed an expansive view of executive authority, and Democrats pushed right back — accusing it of shredding the constitution, claiming near-imperial powers and even corrupting the lawyers working in its service.

That was quite some time ago. Last week the Obama White House invoked executive privilege to shield the Justice Department from a Congressional investigation into a botched gunrunning operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The previous week the White House invoked powers that President Obama himself had previously claimed to lack, unilaterally revising the nationÂ’s immigration laws by promising to stop enforcing them against a particularly sympathetic population.

Both moves were entirely characteristic of this presidency. Obama campaigned as a consistent critic of the Bush administrationÂ’s understanding of executive power — and a critic with a background in constitutional law, no less. But apart from his disavowal of waterboarding (an interrogation practice the Bush White House had already abandoned), almost the entire Bush-era wartime architecture has endured: rendition is still with us, the GuantĂ¡namo detention center is still open, drone strikes have escalated dramatically, and the Obama White House has claimed the right — and, in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, followed through on it — to assassinate American citizens without trial.

These moves have met some principled opposition from the left. But the presidentÂ’s liberal critics are usually academics, journalists and (occasionally) cable-TV hosts, with no real mass constituency behind them.

The majority of Democrats, polls suggest, have followed roughly the same path as the former Yale Law School dean Harold Koh, a staunch critic of BushÂ’s wartime policies who now serves as a legal adviser to the State Department, supplying constitutional justifications for ObamaÂ’s drone campaigns. What was outrageous under a Republican has become executive branch business-as-usual under a Democrat.
END EXCERPT
 

oftheherd1

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
817
What this says to me is that both Bush and Obama were wrong on many constitutional points. That they both have supporters is no surprise.

A president's choice of advisers is usually what defines that president's presidency. Many times choices are made based on the person's campaign contributions, or those of whomever is recommending an adviser to the president and his inner staff.
 

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Both (political) parties have been in power for so long that they have become one and the same. They are all just "what's in it for me, when my term(s) expires".
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
4,435
Location
Michigan
Both (political) parties have been in power for so long that they have become one and the same. They are all just "what's in it for me, when my term(s) expires".

While I certainly agree with that, it galls me when one party claims the moral high ground, fails utterly, and then their followers chant "Oh well, they all do it anyway." Obama pledged the most transparent administration in history and has turned out to be one of the most opaque. His followers seem not to be disappointed by this - they either pretend that he IS that transparent, or they say "Hahaha, they all lie, so what?" I hate that kind of hypocrisy. And yes, the GOP does it too, which is why I'm not GOP either. But this Democratic "We are better people than the Republicans" followed by lie, obfuscation and more power grabs just infuriates me. Democrats are not nicer, kinder, more honest, or more caring than Republicans. In fact, they both suck badly at being humans at all. A pox on both their houses.
 

oftheherd1

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
817
While I certainly agree with that, it galls me when one party claims the moral high ground, fails utterly, and then their followers chant "Oh well, they all do it anyway." Obama pledged the most transparent administration in history and has turned out to be one of the most opaque. His followers seem not to be disappointed by this - they either pretend that he IS that transparent, or they say "Hahaha, they all lie, so what?" I hate that kind of hypocrisy. And yes, the GOP does it too, which is why I'm not GOP either. But this Democratic "We are better people than the Republicans" followed by lie, obfuscation and more power grabs just infuriates me. Democrats are not nicer, kinder, more honest, or more caring than Republicans. In fact, they both suck badly at being humans at all. A pox on both their houses.

For at least about as long as I can remember, that is the way it has been. But I also remember a time when they would say bad things about each other in public, then get together and figure out compromises to make things work. That doesn't seem to happen any more. I can also remember presidents who took leadership roles. I haven't seen that for a while either.
 

Latest Discussions

Top