Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush

CATO Institute ^ | 5/1/6 | Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch

[Crackingham]

In recent judicial confirmation battles, President Bush has repeatedly—and correctly—stressed fidelity to the Constitution as the key qualification for service as a judge. It is also the key qualification for service as the nation's chief executive. On January 20, 2005, for the second time, Mr. Bush took the presidential oath of office set out in the Constitution, swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With five years of the Bush administration behind us, we have more than enough evidence to make an assessment about the president's commitment to our fundamental legal charter

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

[Kenny Bunkport]

That does it! I'm not voting for W in 2008.

[kitkat]

***That does it! I'm not voting for W in 2008.***

Me either. All he's done is save us from the terrorists. Hang him. s/

[MaDeuce]

What is Cato Institutes opinion of old Abe Lincoln? or FDR for that matter.

[Explorer24]

"advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes"

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror; STRAWMAN ANYONE?

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and
HMMMM, WHO ELSE DID THAT...?

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.
HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO BOUNDS

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.
REALLY? SEEMS RIGHT IN LINE WITH FDR, LINCOLN AND OTHERS.

This cracks me up. Clinton lost 2 constitutional battles. Truman lost one. FDR re-wrote the constitution. Jefferson stopped the Supreme Court from functioning for a year.

[Explorer24]

wow, who could've forseen this?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=full

[LibLieSlayer]

I was going to refute this post point by point, but this POS crappy article does NOT deserve the effort. 100% pure bovine excrement!!!

LLS

[facedown]

Cato jumped the shark years ago. There are still a few good folks there but mostly they've gone off the cliff.

[maine-iac7]

100% pure bovine excrement

that's an insult to cow sh*t

[Jason_b]

I read the link you posted and I had to check and make sure it wasn't from the onion. Even then it reads like satire. Do we really want a President like that? In the Federalist Papers, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison promised us a president who'd be scarcely more powerful than a governor of a state. How'd we wind up with a president who is above the law?

"In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills..."

Citation please? You know what, he doesn't need one because his will is supreme, and the State is now God.

As to the poster who thinks Bush saved "us" from the terrorists? Did he save you personally? Prove it? Has he saved me? I don't know would I have been blown up yesterday? Who knows? I might have died in a car crash, but I didn't; was it Bush who averted the accident? Those who died on 9/11, that was during Bush's term, he didn't save them, but even that doesn't mean anything. We can't know if he has saved us from anything. We can only know what he hasn't saved us from.

How does the President of a Constitutional Republic differ from a dictator or a tyrant when he believes he is bound by no law? And if he believes he is bound by no law, do we have a Constitutional Republic anymore? Congress just letting him get away with this, they are in on it.

A President who can disregard a nations laws is no less than making his own laws for himself as he ignores those he does not agree with. He's no longer just the Executive, he's also the legislative at the same time. This gravely compromises separation of powers, not that any of you 'bots would care.

We are a nation of laws not men. No man is above the law. Quaint quotations of an obsolete notion from a past time. Just wait until the next President or the one after takes up where Bush leaves off, and turns out to be another Stalin, or Pol Pot, at heart.

[cmsgop]

My Lib Friend printed out the whole Damn Thing for me on Friday, It took me about 10 Min to refute it point by point

[BIGZ]

You are in the United States now, it's TORO KAKA.

[NRA2BFree]

We are a nation of laws not men. No man is above the law.

Oh, really? As I watched hundreds of thousands of illegals march through the streets of America, I saw a nation filled with law breakers, and I wondered why those "laws" weren't being enforced. Obviously, they ARE, above the law!!

[sinkspur]

Cato jumped the shark years ago. There are still a few good folks there but mostly they've gone off the cliff.

Yeah. I'm surprised Doug Bandow didn't contribute to this bilge. He rarely misses a chance to stick a knife in Bush's back.

[Explorer24]

jason, appreciate the passion, but I don't agree, not even close.

Bush has asserted powers other presidents exercised, more forcefully.

Read the 4th circuit Padilla decision and the DOJ justification for the NSA program to get some back drop. Also read this guy:
Robert F. Turner (spoke at Georgetown) is director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger (www. fightingterror.com), which advocates aggressive action in the war against terror.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=331700&attrib_id=7602
http://www.kansas.com/mld/montereyherald/news/opinion/13633106.htm
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/13622559.htm

To say Bush ('s leadership/actions) hasn't prevented attacks is denying reality. And as somone who lives near potential targets, I can say honestly, thanks.

[Jason_b]

Thanks for the reasoned response. I'll look at those links tomorrow. Can't comment any more tonight. Too tired.

[Jason_b]

Read the rest of the paragraph!

[Explorer24]

Let me be clear.

A) I'm not sure the NSA and other things are truly constitutional, though I think there's colorable arguments to support them.

B) I'm not handing over the exec a blank check. To me, this would be temporal powers, as in the past, and tied to the 911 AUMF resolution, which therefore, could be repealed.

Also, don't forget, none of this is unchecked, which of course libs fail to mention.

If Congress wants to abridge these powers, they can in various ways -

1. power of the purse - stop funding, as Specter has threatened,

2. impeachment

3. passing a resolution that says - "the 9/11 AUMF did not authorize X" or another resolution that says, "we do not believe exec has X, Y Z power." This would undermine one of Bush's primary arguments that was upheld in Padilla and other cases, and is cited again in the NSA context. He'd have to rely entirely on inherent constitutional powers, and in the face of contrary Congressional statements, which, in light of Youngstown, would be an uphill battle.

I say this b/c I'm not bowing before a new King; I think it's important powers to be used wisely and I think it's checkable.

[Onelifetogive]

If there is even a hint of truth to any of this, true Conservatives must find ways to bring the GOP around to more Constitutional ways of operating. Giving more power to any Dimocrat, anywhere would be worse, not better. Conservatives need to HAMMER THE GOP in the primaries, the hold their nose and vote for them in the general election. For now, the GOP is the only realistic horse we have to ride.

True Conservatives need to work to become at least 51% of the GOP and make the GOP at least 51% of the country. We won't win every battle, but we should be able to win the war.

[FreedomPoster]

Care to recap? The local lefties are all over this, all the sudden.