Comments on: The Unitary Executive, Part II: What It Is and Why It’s Bad

By: And it gets scarier . . . « Suz at Large

And it gets scarier . . . « Suz at Large — Sun, 27 May 2007 17:29:58 +0000

[...] And second, about that “the intelligence activities I have authorized are lawful” claim. Look, W, we’ve already heard your unitary-executive Constitutional theory [explained here and here] that if you do it, it is therefore legal. And that no matter what Congress writes in those laws you sign, you aren’t necessarily bound to follow them*. Honeybuns, besides being a fat old socially liberal American woman, I’ve practiced law for 29 years. And it’s my informed opinion that you’re full of shit on that one. [...]

By: textad

textad — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:45:47 +0000

blogsearch an Websearch

Blogsearch an Websearch

By: Political Religion « The Cathedral Arctic

Political Religion « The Cathedral Arctic — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:09:54 +0000

[...] This is nothing new. This has been going on since the formation of the Moral Majority back in the ’70’s. The problem is compounded today with the usurpation of power in the Executive branch, thanks to proponents of the ‘Unitary Executive‘ theory of government that is guaranteed to make our Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. Combined campaigning for GOP candidates within the auspices of a church, the funneling of currency to Faith Based Organizations that only support George W. Bush, and now the attack on those churches that have taken an anti-war stance bodes ill for the future of this Republic. [...]

By: Blue Sachem

Blue Sachem — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:19:39 +0000

Dubya obviously issued a signing statement after taking the oath of office. Access to the document is on a need to know basis.

And since the 4th Amendment is on sabbatical, maybe the Shrub plans on voiding the XXII. All this pesky pre 9/11 thinking!

By: Steve from Canuckistan

Steve from Canuckistan — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:42:06 +0000

There’s too much money at stake and too many GOP political donors are getting rich for Bush to jeopardize everything by changing the vocabulary now by calling the “war on terror” the “police action on terror”.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:43:56 +0000

Maha, thanks for a great post. The media are reporting the events as they unfold but they are reluctant to put them all together so that we can see the big, ugly picture.
The Authorization to Use Military Force was not a declaration of war, but the president would still be bound by the laws if we were at war. The FISA act contains explicit provisions concerning a state of war. If the president thought these provisions were too confining, he should have gone to the Congress and asked them to change the law. Instead he chose to ignore it.
I think the Congress has not been fulfilling its responsibility with regard to checks and balances. They still have the power of the purse, and can refuse to fund what they don’t like. They can hold up bills that the president wants, such as the Patriot Act, until they get an explicit promise that he will obey them as written. If the Democrats get control of either house, they can hold investigations and hearings. And if they get control of both houses, they can send him back to Crawford, TX.

By: emel

emel — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:41:57 +0000

The findlaw article is a good one- you notice the ’scholars’ mentioned are all Nixonian OLC folks- yes this an old rationalization for presidential power from the original nixon crowd. All our problems ( and the personnel)seem to date from that era. No surprise huh. I really feel we should not debate their points- it is just more smoke and mirrors from a crowd that will do anything to keep grabbing power at our expense while we are over in the corner picking apart their drivel( see Glenn Greenwald and how the administration answered Dem questions about NSA spying and how they answered Repub questions- proof that they are so deep into rationalizing there is no meaningful discussion with them).

By: Donna

Donna — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:39:05 +0000

Thanks for this post. Many who previously supported George Bush may now secretly and desperately want to see some strong Democrats emerge and lead this country back to sanity.

A couple of days ago, I got into a rather heated exchange with a Bush supporter who said the most curious thing, “Why are the Democrats so quiet….if they think Bush is ruining the country, they should stand up and shout their disapproval!” Only later did it occur to me that this curious statement was delivered in a tone that likely reflected a tacit hope that someone could successfully counter Bush.

Jane Smiley’s piece was soooo good.

By: alyosha

alyosha — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:58:40 +0000

Several thoughts on comment 3:

I agree with many of the points you make.

Bush and the entire right wing would never agree to this, both from a political standpoint and from an emotional/philosophical one. They’re entirely fear based, and they both need and see enemies everywhere. This alone shuts off their ability to reason and be open to the points you raise.

Obviously, Bush et al. use this to stay in power. Otherwise, jailtime or a War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague is a real possibliity (we should be pushing for the latter, IMO).

Your central idea is complicated by the notion that while we are not fighting a war in the traditional sense, terrorists are far more than mere criminals. To someone watching television, it sure looks like war.

Technology has shifted the balance of power away from nation-states to individuals. The seriousness of the threat posed by these individuals is due to their proximity to the oil, our country’s lifeblood. Had the al Qaeda attack on the Saudi oil field (a month ago?) been successful, it would have roiled the entire global economy, and caused huge problems at home – which was their intention – not bad for a handful of criminals.

The other point I want to make is that it’s my belief that Bush and company actually want all this destruction, both abroad and at home. Or at the very least they don’t care, it’s a completely acceptable price to pay. Their fortunes are intact, and they will benefit as the middle class in this country is ruined. Bush and al Qaeda need each other. And so sane ideas like yours don’t even touch the horrible pathology driving these people, IMO. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

If you’ll allow me some phantasmagorica, one of my acquaintances is a famous psychic, and a lifelong Republican. His vision of Bush is of someone dipping their hand into a large bowl of blood and bodies, and laughing. That’s how I see it, too.

Finally, should sane people manage to wrest control of our country, I’m certain that ideas like yours will be the ones that are ultimately followed to resolve the situation.

By: wmr

wmr — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:05:44 +0000

I agree with Bonnie in #3 above. I didn’t realize that the Authorization of Use of Military Force was a formal declaration of war. As far as I can tell, Congress has not yet formally declared war, but I suppose the unitary President can do that too, even if Congress suggests otherwise.