mzalen-do
26th April 2006, 11:29
Power relations between the three branches of American government, the executive, the judiciary and the legislature are a topical issue in the American political discourse.
What has triggered the present round of debate is the criticism that President George Bush has amassed unparallel power and he has, in the process, supplanted the other branches of government.
Bush is peeved by the negative comments regarding his use of executive power quipping on one occasion that he resents being likened to an incipient dictator in the mould of some Third World rulers.
Some argue that what Bush says and his record are two starkly different realities, and it all stems from 9/11. After the events of that day, Bush swung into action and argued for greater powers and flexibility to confront the enemy.
In the spirit of bipartisan patriotism (better alive with restricted freedoms than dead), Congress passed the Patriot Act with little dissent. It gave the president much power and plasticity to go about the business of protecting America from its foreign and domestic enemies. The Bush administration wasted no time in taking advantage of the power the Act gave it.
The Justice Department issued creative interpretation of the law to grant the president greater leeway in the exercise of power.
Prominent attorneys in the department inferred that the president’s power was essentially unfettered and he could conduct the war as he liked, including removing from the purview of American justice the enemy combatants captured in the war on terror.
Secret prisons in which it is alleged unspeakable tortures were conducted sprung up all over the globe.
These matters came to light courtesy of an intrepid press that has been emboldened by Bush’s declining popularity. First the Washington Post went to town with the story about secret American gulags in some European countries. European public and official reaction was hysterical although it is likely the officials were in the know. Still reeling from the exposure, The New York Times added to the misery of the Bush administration by revealing that it has conducted warrantless domestic wiretaps.
The White House had specifically requested the paper, which sat on the story for a year, to withhold publication arguing that it would compromise national security.
An angry Bush said as much when he called for a probe into who leaked the story.
Some Americans were reminded of President Richard Nixon’s wiretaps and they called for congressional investigation of the president’s use of power. The senate leadership has promised to look into the matter soon.
To make matters even more complicated for Bush, Congress has declined to extend the Patriot Act indefinitely. A number of Congressional leaders are insisting that the Act’s sections granting blanket powers to the president be rescinded to protect the fundamental rights of Americans. Bush is opposed to any such restrictions.
To add to the president’s woes, Congress passed a bill specifically prohibiting the use of torture on detainees captured in the war on terror. Initially, the White House was vehemently opposed to the move saying it would enfeeble the conduct of war. Vice-President Dick Cheney was forced into an unenviable position of supporting the use of torture.
In the end the Bush administration caved in, but not totally it transpired. A little known legal doctrine — unitary executive power — has provided Bush with the straw he needs to do as he pleases, according to his critics, and it has ignited an interesting debate on the bounds of presidential power in the American political system.
The doctrine posits that the president’s signing statements when he assents to a bill have the force of law, or very close to it anyway.
A signing statement is what the president says he understands the bill he is just about to sign to mean.
Presidential interpretation, according to its proponents, does have weight, as much weight as statements by legislators’ interpretations during debate. It has been claimed that Bush has issued more signing statements than all previous American presidents combined, a record that is worrisome to many legal scholars.
Bush’s appetite for signing statements explains in part why many Democrats are opposed to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
Alito is an avid proponent of expanded executive power and some fear that he will defer excessively to the executive branch when he finally gets to sit on the court.
What has triggered the present round of debate is the criticism that President George Bush has amassed unparallel power and he has, in the process, supplanted the other branches of government.
Bush is peeved by the negative comments regarding his use of executive power quipping on one occasion that he resents being likened to an incipient dictator in the mould of some Third World rulers.
Some argue that what Bush says and his record are two starkly different realities, and it all stems from 9/11. After the events of that day, Bush swung into action and argued for greater powers and flexibility to confront the enemy.
In the spirit of bipartisan patriotism (better alive with restricted freedoms than dead), Congress passed the Patriot Act with little dissent. It gave the president much power and plasticity to go about the business of protecting America from its foreign and domestic enemies. The Bush administration wasted no time in taking advantage of the power the Act gave it.
The Justice Department issued creative interpretation of the law to grant the president greater leeway in the exercise of power.
Prominent attorneys in the department inferred that the president’s power was essentially unfettered and he could conduct the war as he liked, including removing from the purview of American justice the enemy combatants captured in the war on terror.
Secret prisons in which it is alleged unspeakable tortures were conducted sprung up all over the globe.
These matters came to light courtesy of an intrepid press that has been emboldened by Bush’s declining popularity. First the Washington Post went to town with the story about secret American gulags in some European countries. European public and official reaction was hysterical although it is likely the officials were in the know. Still reeling from the exposure, The New York Times added to the misery of the Bush administration by revealing that it has conducted warrantless domestic wiretaps.
The White House had specifically requested the paper, which sat on the story for a year, to withhold publication arguing that it would compromise national security.
An angry Bush said as much when he called for a probe into who leaked the story.
Some Americans were reminded of President Richard Nixon’s wiretaps and they called for congressional investigation of the president’s use of power. The senate leadership has promised to look into the matter soon.
To make matters even more complicated for Bush, Congress has declined to extend the Patriot Act indefinitely. A number of Congressional leaders are insisting that the Act’s sections granting blanket powers to the president be rescinded to protect the fundamental rights of Americans. Bush is opposed to any such restrictions.
To add to the president’s woes, Congress passed a bill specifically prohibiting the use of torture on detainees captured in the war on terror. Initially, the White House was vehemently opposed to the move saying it would enfeeble the conduct of war. Vice-President Dick Cheney was forced into an unenviable position of supporting the use of torture.
In the end the Bush administration caved in, but not totally it transpired. A little known legal doctrine — unitary executive power — has provided Bush with the straw he needs to do as he pleases, according to his critics, and it has ignited an interesting debate on the bounds of presidential power in the American political system.
The doctrine posits that the president’s signing statements when he assents to a bill have the force of law, or very close to it anyway.
A signing statement is what the president says he understands the bill he is just about to sign to mean.
Presidential interpretation, according to its proponents, does have weight, as much weight as statements by legislators’ interpretations during debate. It has been claimed that Bush has issued more signing statements than all previous American presidents combined, a record that is worrisome to many legal scholars.
Bush’s appetite for signing statements explains in part why many Democrats are opposed to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
Alito is an avid proponent of expanded executive power and some fear that he will defer excessively to the executive branch when he finally gets to sit on the court.