posted on June 1, 2007 04:36:00 PM new
May 31, 2007
Unbridled Executive Power
The Unitary King George
By MARJORIE COHN
As the nation focused on whether Congress would exercise its constitutional duty to cut funding for the war, Bush quietly issued an unconstitutional bombshell that went virtually unnoticed by the corporate media.
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.
If a "catastrophic emergency"--which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster--occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."
What about the other two co-equal branches of government? The directive throws them a bone by speaking of a "cooperative effort" among the three branches, "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers." The Vice-President would help to implement the plans.
"Comity," however, means courtesy, and the President would decide what kind of respect for the other two branches of government would be "proper." This Presidential Directive is a blatant power grab by Bush to institutionalize "the unitary executive."
A seemingly innocuous phrase, the unitary executive theory actually represents a radical, ultra rightwing interpretation of the powers of the presidency. Championed by the conservative Federalist Society, the unitary executive doctrine gathers all power in the hands of the President and insulates him from any oversight by the congressional or judicial branches.
In a November 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, then Judge Samuel Alito said the Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."
These "unitarians" claim that all federal agencies, even those constitutionally created by Congress, are beholden to the Chief Executive, that is, the President. This means that Bush could disband agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Reserve Board, etc., if they weren't to his liking.
Indeed, Bush signed an executive order stating that each federal agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee. Consumer advocates were concerned that this directive was aimed at weakening the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The unitary executive dogma represents audacious presidential overreaching into the constitutional province of the other two branches of government.
This doctrine took shape within the Bush administration shortly after 9/11. On September 25, 2001, former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo used the words "unitary executive" in a memo he wrote for the White House: "The centralization of authority in the president alone is particularly crucial in matters of national defense, war, and foreign policy, where a unitary executive can evaluate threats, consider policy choices, and mobilize national resources with a speed and energy that is far superior to any other branch." Six weeks later, Bush began using that phrase in his signing statements.
As of December 22, 2006, Bush had used the words "unitary executive" 145 times in his signing statements and executive orders. Yoo, one of the chief architects of Bush's doctrine of unfettered executive power, wrote memoranda advising Bush that because he was commander in chief, he could make war any time he thought there was a threat, and he didn't have to comply with the Geneva Conventions.
In a 2005 debate with Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel, Yoo argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering that a young child of a suspect in custody be tortured, even by crushing the child's testicles.
The unitary executive theory has already cropped up in Supreme Court opinions. In his lone dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice Clarence Thomas cited "the structural advantages of a unitary Executive." He disagreed with the Court that due process demands an American citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker. Thomas wrote, "Congress, to be sure, has a substantial and essential role in both foreign affairs and national security. But it is crucial to recognize that judicial interference in these domains destroys the purpose of vesting primary responsibility in a unitary Executive."
Justice Thomas's theory fails to recognize why our Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government.
In 1926, Justice Louis Brandeis explained the constitutional role of the separation of powers. He wrote, "The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy."
Eighty years later, noted conservative Grover Norquist, describing the unitary executive theory, echoed Brandeis's sentiment. Norquist said, "you don't have a constitution; you have a king."
One wonders what Bush & Co. are setting up with the new Presidential Directive. What if, heaven forbid, some sort of catastrophic event were to occur just before the 2008 election? Bush could use this directive to suspend the election. This administration has gone to great lengths to remain in Iraq. It has built huge permanent military bases and pushed to privatize Iraq's oil. Bush and Cheney may be unwilling to relinquish power to a successor administration.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in July. See http://www.marjoriecohn.com/.
posted on June 1, 2007 04:56:36 PM new
Well.... I think it's wonderful after 5 years of reading sybil whine, snivel and spew hatred towards our President.....that we NOW have a KING.
posted on June 1, 2007 04:59:52 PM new
I knew you would be happy about your Fascist King....proves you're a Fascist....remember ...Fascist think women are nothing more than cattle with no rights.....
posted on June 1, 2007 05:04:17 PM new
First request I'll have for our NEW KING is to get you some SERIOUS HELP.
What do you REALLY expect from a wimpy democratically led house and senate?
lol lol lol
They couldn't even present a bill to stop the war, like they PROMISED they would.
Expect THEM to be leaders should a horrific attack happen by these terrorists that some liberals here think AREN'T a threat at all?
I sure as heck don't.
I'd like to have our LEADER in charge....as our constitution gives him the POWER to be.
Anything ELSE you want to #*!@ about? It fills each and everyday of your pathetic life, sybil.
=============================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 1, 2007 07:11:16 PM new
linduh, if you knew anything about the Constitution you would know that bush considers it just a "goddamn piece of paper"....it's gets in the way of his Fascist plans.
If YOU believe in the constitution why do you want another monarchy ?....you should hate the Constitution just like bushit does.
linduh drools, ""They couldn't even present a bill to stop the war, like they PROMISED they would.
Expect THEM to be leaders should a horrific attack happen by these terrorists that some liberals here think AREN'T a threat at all?""
Ya, they voted TO fund the war. Why do you see that as NOT wanting to defend the nation?
Just more of your inability to think logically.....
posted on June 2, 2007 09:21:54 AM new
Whatsa matter....afraid to push these UNanswered questions to the top with even one of the neocons non-posts ???
posted on June 3, 2007 08:48:51 PM new
Okay, so I'm the most gullible person anybody knows (just ask my family & friends), but surely this column cannot be true?! Is it a joke?
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on June 3, 2007 09:53:22 PM new
Haven't you heard bushit say that dictatorships are bad,....unless he's the dictator ???
Funny how those who scream the loudest about the Constitution don't give a damn about how bushit is ignoring it....calling it a %!@*%^& piece of paper, and doing his best to destroy it and the meaning behind it......TRAITORS!!!!!!
posted on June 3, 2007 10:45:20 PM new
You've been whining and whining about him acting as a king since he was elected.
I join you in celebrating he IS a king....because your cowardly congress has no guts....once again....and now you're still whining.
You'll always find something to whine about sybil. It's so you. LOL LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 4, 2007 04:41:03 AM new
Funny how those who scream the loudest about the Constitution don't give a damn about how bushit is ignoring it....calling it a %!@*%^& piece of paper, and doing his best to destroy it and the meaning behind it......TRAITORS!!!!!!
Oh my 6 exclamation points...I think shes ready to implode again
anyone have any cheese we can pass around
with this wine??
[ edited by classicrock000 on Jun 4, 2007 04:42 AM ]
posted on June 4, 2007 04:50:54 AM new
Linda_K
posted on June 3, 2007 10:45:20 PM You've been whining and whining about him acting as a king since he was elected.
Well whats wrong with having a King? England has a king and they seem to be doing okay.Elvis was the King,and he was the best. Its just "Queens" I cant stand
......................if ya know what I mean.
[ edited by classicrock000 on Jun 4, 2007 04:52 AM ]
posted on June 4, 2007 08:25:25 AM new
???"Well whats wrong with having a King? England has a king and they seem to be doing okay.??????????
LINDA, YOU SILLY TWIT.
England does have a monarch, it's true, but it ALSO HAS A PARLIAMENT. Get it? Their prime minister is the equivalent of our president. Their king/queen are the equivalent of the hostess with the mostest, gadding about at ceremonial stuff.
There's NO WAY Parliament (Lords and Commons) would allow Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, to circumvent England's laws and constitution. Prime ministers get deposed frequently for just such behavior, with no-confidence votes.
Study up, honey. You'd be much better equipped to argue for Bush, your personal God.
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on June 4, 2007 11:03:38 AM new
roadsmith
posted on June 4, 2007 08:25:25 AM ???"Well whats wrong with having a King? England has a king and they seem to be doing okay.??????????
Hey Linda, I made that statement.Why is Roadsmith getting all over your case???
I just cant stand it when you get all the attention in here,you know how I hate that! What are you some kinda attention whore?? If ya dont knock it off,Im going to start calling you Paris or Lindsay...
[ edited by classicrock000 on Jun 4, 2007 11:07 AM ]
I know, roadsmith that got confused. Happens a lot.
I know...the three blind mice love calling me an attention whore....like children love using cuss words....it makes them happy/laugh....makes them feel like grownups. lol lol
But then the part I can't figure out is why they spend their days following me around seeking only MY attention.
I believe it's called 'trolling' and 'baiting' and they're the queens of baiting and trolling as can ususally be seen on most threads.
So, classic....you're it - the 'twit' according to our oft confused roadsmith.
I think it's wonderful after 5 years of reading sybil whine, snivel and spew hatred towards our President.....that we NOW have a KING.
...Fascist think women are nothing more than cattle with no rights.....