I am incredibly surprised that nobody picked up on this and decided to debate it.

Most constitutional scholars and historians, and people on this forum will agree that the authority the Executive Branch of Government has increased fairly dramatically since the Great Depression and Second World War, and some would argue it reached its apex with Nixon. Well as it turns out, Nixon with his generous use of wiretaps, congressional meddling and powerful executive committees had it right afterall.



Of course Cheney can't go into detail about anything without it immediately costing the lives of thousands of innocent Americans, but given the current discussions in Washington it seems pretty clear that he's talking about the President's ability to act unsupervised from Congress in areas of war and security.



Now I know that sometimes people get the impression that posters on America's Debate can get caught up in partisanship, but lets step back and consider for a second. I have two "sets" of questions, one theoretical and the other practical. Please consider each before answering instead of railing (or rallying to) the President and Cheney.

Has the power of the U.S. Presidency increased significantly since the 18th century?

Is this expansion justified by the Constitution itself?

And looking more specifically at recent events:

Is Cheney's interpretation correct? Does oversight from Congress impede the President?

Great topic UltimateJoe.


Absolutely, for some reason everyone thinks that the Executive branch is the "most important" or most powerful...The Congress, President and Judiciary are equal partners, period, but I guess culturally the American people have put the President on a higher pedestal than the other branches. We as a people like to look up to one person for whatever reason and that has allowed the Presidency to expand in power, most of the times unconstitutionally.


No...It amazes me that someone who is as smart as Cheney can say something that amazingly stupid. This country was founded on checks and balances and he basically says that the Constitution allows us to do away with them...that's just wrong, plain and simple. I'd also be willing to be that when Clinton and Carter were in charge, Mr. Cheney would much rather have a more limited Executive branch.


Yes, that's the whole point. It checks the power of the President, and if Cheney doesn't like it he can move to a monarchy.

CP

Has the power of the U.S. Presidency increased significantly since the 18th century?

Sure. It's expanded greatly since the end of WWII. We've now had Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and a number of lesser conflicts without a formal declaration of war.

Is this expansion justified by the Constitution itself?

No. I think the expansion of presidential power has been evolutionary rather than something suppoted by the Constitution.

And looking more specifically at recent events:

Is Cheney's interpretation correct? Does oversight from Congress impede the President?

As usual Cheney is full of himself. I'm sure Congressional oversight does imped the president, but perhaps this current incarnation of Nixon needs to be impeded.

BTW: This is not a new issue. In 1973, a year before the fall of the Nixon regime, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. published an interesting volume entitled The Imperial Presidency.

Has the power of the U.S. Presidency increased significantly since the 18th century? Power of the Presidency relative to what? In an absolute sense, certainly, but the question is whether the increase is greater or lesser than the increase in power of the Federal government, and whether the Presidential increase could be uncoupled from the Fed increase.

Is this expansion justified by the Constitution itself? Part of it is, part is not.

And looking more specifically at recent events:

Is Cheney's interpretation correct? Does oversight from Congress impede the President? Depends on what's being overseen. The Congressional lust to interject itself into the normal day to day activity of conducting foreign affairs and security does impede the President. The role of the Congress is to set the agenda. The role of the President is to execute. Congress's unwillingness to "gird their loins" and actually step forth with clear agendas has led many to meddle so they can "do something."

Grace and peace, BD

Has the power of the U.S. Presidency increased significantly since the 18th century?
Yes, but I think that’s true of all three branches by varying degrees which, without the amendment process to clarify the Constitution, may lead to imposing on the other branches.

Is this expansion justified by the Constitution itself?
I’d have to look individually at each circumstance. For example, I’d say that while the Senate is given a lot of leeway when it comes to procedural rules “advise and consent” is not the equivalent of an up or down vote. In this case I would be for amending the constitution to do away with the blue-slip procedure completely.

In the unauthorized surveillance case, even if you go back to a pre-AUMF, pre-FISA, and pre-War Powers Act era, suggesting that pitting the Fourth Amendment against the president’s ability to collect information on Americans is akin to “infringing” on the authority of his office doesn’t wash. To portray the president’s powers so sweeping one must conclude the Stone Supreme Court incorrectly overruled the president’s EO 9066, based on the Articles of War, authorizing the detention of Japanese Americans.

Whatever else the Bill of Rights may be it specifically limits the powers of the federal government. The limitation includes the executive’s authority to spy on and detain Americans. It boggles me that while I disagreed with SCOTUS on Kelo v. New London (IMO all the Bill of Rights should apply to the states to avoid drafting another Fourteenth Amendment), when it comes to an amendment that has long been interpreted as dealing with the federal government suddenly the office of the presidency is considered by conservatives to be above the limitations set forth by the Constitution.

Is Cheney's interpretation correct? Does oversight from Congress impede the President?
Cheney is stuck in a White House version of That Seventies Show time warp... or I'll have whatever he's smoking.

Has the power of the U.S. Presidency increased significantly since the 18th century?

Definitely. Over the centuries, Presidents have tried to do things as legally as possible, and within the bounds of the power given to them. More recently there has been a major increase of executive power. I don't think this is all some righteous return of power but that Bush is grabbing for every little bit he can get his hands on. Personally I see him on his way to dictatorship. Its the way that all of them started was as a high ranking official in a good government and they slowly but surely got more and more control without supervision. The reason the President is held in check the way he is, is to prevent something like that from happening. In short Yes executive power has increased significantly since the 18th century.


Is this expansion justified by the Constitution itself?


No I don't think it is. My experience with the constitution is limited but I'm pretty sure it doesnt say that the President and his cabinet can make decisions regarding policy and privacy without the support of the Congress.

No comment for Three.

According to the Article II section II: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

This goes a long way to what power the Commander in chief can provide as the president when war is imposed. He can move without restraint, with the exception of impeachment.


Has the power of the U.S. Presidency increased significantly since the 18th century?

Actually, the current President is not exercising anywhere near the powers implemented by Lincoln. He has not issued an order removing the writ to hadeas corpus, nor has he stopped the mail and had it opened for scrutiny. Actually, it has not changed in perspective as to what the current President could do.

Is this expansion justified by the Constitution itself? Yes per article one, the congress has the power to do so and in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president is empowered to act. And in the current declaration of power to defeat the terrorist, congress has stated the President may use any means necessary.

The fourth amendment allows for search that is reasonable and in war searching for military intelligence is more then reasonable for the protection of the lives of each and every citizen.

Article i section 9: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This clause, though in a framing under the congress article does not speak to who may impose this exception. (The structural framing of the original constitution did not have any article numbers or sections.) Thus, when congress or the President in the 60 day window provided for by the War Powers Resolution, declare war action, the President as Commander in chief has the power to administer his will in making such determination of what is rebellion or invasion. Under the Military Manual, there are rules to deal with enemy combatants and it does not allow for a writ of hadeas corpus. So if anyone on U.S. Soil is captured, the president may imprison the combatant and have to rely on executions to prevent recurrence of such an individual.


Is Cheney's interpretation correct? Does oversight from Congress impede the President?

NO. It is actually required by the War Power Resolution, that the President must report to congress every 6 months on all activity that has taken place. This has been done and it has not impeded his actions what so ever. If the congress found Him to be in error, they would have acted and impeded him. that is congress responsibility, as they in essence are the King of the Hill. The media has done more for the enemy then the enemy has done for himself. Congress, until of late, has behaved.

I would add that if anyone in a bureaucratic position of any department, be it dept. of State or the DOD, has felt they were vengefully justified and did not like the administrations policy and have undermined the President in the conduct of the war, they are bordering on one word, treason. Anyone who breaks a Nationally kept secret by whistle blowing must know that they took an oath and that oath is their worst enemy. There were proper channels and they know it. That includes those who were congresspersons on the National Security Commissions or what ever committee the pro temp president of the Senate or the Speaker of the House reported to.

George,

You continually sound like a disciple of Scalia. If you want to keep harping on original meaning, then you should be consistent. There has been no declared war in this country since WWII. I would submit that if we look at original intent, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. were police actions in the absence of a formal declaration of war by Congress. This would limit Bush's power.

Not hardly. Did you see the ruling on commerce and the one on eniment domain? I am a disciple of going by the law as authorized by those who made it. Amend it if the law is antiquated, don't run it over? that creates anrachy.

Here is the Declaration of war in 2001, in part:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The October 2, 2002 declaration of war, in part:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


In both Acts of Joint Resolution, congress has enacted the War Powers Resolution, and authorized any means neccessary for the President to be victorious. I would say that he has the authority to be Commander in Chief and apply the his constitutional duty in time of such war.

In reality there is a war. What I said was that if you were going to go by Scalia like "textualism" or "originalism" then Bush would need a formal Declaration of War. Please note the word if. It is a small word, but it is important.

This article describes the Powers of the President in general, not the power of the President in a time of war. He always has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in the cases of impeachment.

The President is the Commaner in Chief of the military, but Congress has the explicit Constitutional power to make rules governing and regulating the military. This means that Congress can make rules like... you can't spy on US citizens without a warrant. Does this end in war time? Not unless the President declares that he is suspending civil rights.



And the President has no cause to suspend habeas corpus and stop the mail to open it for scrutiny. Lincoln was dealing with Rebellion... we are not. Nor have we been invaded. There is a difference between an attack and an invasion.



No. There is a huge difference between allowing any means necessary and allowing all necessary and appropriate force. One gives the President a blank check to do as he wishes. The second limits him to only what is necessary and appropriate. As regards, the whole NSA thing goes, the President has not shown that it was necessary or appropriate force.



But he can still search for military intelligence and allow for 4th Amendment protections under FISA... this is why bypassing FISA is unreasonable under the 4th Amendment.

Is Cheney's interpretation correct? Does oversight from Congress impede the President?



I'm sorry but telling a few select members of Congress but not allowing them to discuss it with anyone -- including other members who may know what's going on -- does not constitute reporting to congress. Congress could not act because the few select members of Congress were unable to even discuss it.

Oversight does not impede the President, in this case in particular. What the President appears to want is the ability to conduct warrantless domestic searches without oversight. This is not necessary and should not be allowed nor should it be considered "necessary force" as authorized by Congress.

And, personally, I find the use of war against a concept for the purpose of increasing the powers of the President to be distasteful... and that's putting it mildly.

And what concept is it we are using war to provide the president with these powers constitutionally authorized? Totalitarian Islam extremism? 9/11 is not a mild concept, nor would a nuke be mild. When 9/11 occured, there were 48 suitcase nukes missing. Think we found them yet?

First off we are not at war. Let me say that again, we are not at war. Congress has not declared war. The President has not asked for such a declaration. We have not been at war since the end of World War Two.

Lastly nothing in Article 2's powers as Commander in Chief of the military give the president any authority of any extra kind over the civilian population. The 4th amendment remains in effect.

Has the power of the U.S. Presidency increased significantly since the 18th century?

Yep. Lincoln used his war powers to keep things together. Then we got the Cold War as an excuse to extend the war powers from WWII. When the USSR fell, the executive needed another war, and there you go. We are now at perpetual war.

Is this expansion justified by the Constitution itself?

Only by the most liberal of readings, where your brains start bouncing away from your head because you've opened up this gigantic hole.

Is Cheney's interpretation correct? Does oversight from Congress impede the President?

Dick Cheney's interpretations of everything are warped. He is saying that the law impedes the freedom of the President. He's the administration's cheerleader, the obscene one.

Um, yep. I can't drive 70 in a 40 either. Well, I can. But then I have to pay the price when I get caught, don't I. If I neglect to file my taxes, there's a price to be paid. I am free to not file, of course. And what about robbing a bank? It's just that these nagging laws keep impeding the War Against Poverty (my own).

Isn't it interesting that a Republican-controlled Congress is in the way of a Republican president? Yes, and this over a silly stipulation in the law, something about judicial oversight. It's just a formality, people! Certainly not an impeachable offense. The administration is guilty of a non-crime:

It Just Forgot (about the law). Is incompetence illegal?

It is for me.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The "War on Terror" is a war against a concept. You can't win a "War on Terror" any more than you can win a "War on Drugs". Terrorism has been around for a very long time and there has never been a war fought that destroyed the concept. If, however, you can keep a population frightened of that concept, you can use that fear to control them... your last statement proves my point exactly. Living in a free society has a cost in terms of security. You can't have complete security and a free society. The two do not go hand in hand.

So, when the Executive Branch decides to use this perpetual "war against a concept" as a means to expand the powers of the Executive, I find it distasteful... to put it mildly.

9/11 wasn't a concept, it was an event. And while it was tragic and while we need to get the man responsible (oh, yeah... where is he now?) it is not an excuse to expand the powers of the Presidency. It is a reason to fix the problems with interagency communication, to fix problems with airport security, to address immigration and border issues... it is not, however, a reason to invade a country that had no involvement in the 9/11 attack... nor is it a reason to allow the President to bypass federal law and violate 4th Amendment rights.

We have been doing it since 1776. I don't mean to make light of your points. They are clearly very important to reign in that which you fear. But, if we are to maintain the freedoms we are appreciating even in this time of war, we need to be vigilant. The concept of the war on terrorism is not fighting the method of conflict. We would be after these guys if they took up conventional war concepts. They can't nor will they, unless we turn our back again and let their power accumulate. We have eradicated these gangster type cells around the world and still are. Hussein was paying the suicide bombers families for such acts. This is stopped. We have the threatening Iranian nuclear threat which has been a supporting factor to these fanatic people. They are still trying to get to us and with even greater level of attacks.

War is not an instant potato scheme. It takes time to prepare, to gather intelligence, etc. When we declared war the President stated it would be a long haul possibly 10 years or more. Certainly when imminent danger arise, it the duty of the Commander in Chief to protect us. Congress declared the use of force and if the president were to not find the war ending, when it is apparent it has, then it is a will of congress to do so if they so chose.

Probably either in Pakistan or Iran. Should we have invaded these two countries to find one dog running?

Since time eternal of America, presidents have had cart blanca on foreign communications and foreign spies in this country. The patriot act has surely been an expansion of providing a finer line on the 4th amendment, but it is not any different then your mailman handling your mail. He does not share your privacy and neither do the NSA. What they monitor goes in one ear and out another. If any facts are found and kept, the facts must be accounted for.

The NSA is under constant inspections to show such collected evidence has proper need. Your privacy is being protected, much more then being intruded on by the people paid to protect you. Keep your vigilance and our government shall remain in tact, responsible to the individual and keeping him free and secure.

I myself don't live in a large city and I have much less fear of another attack then most. yet I would hope that preventing such an attack will help in preserving my constitutional privileges and immunities from being oppressed by a government who if it finds a need, can shut down this country under Martial Law and that my friend is the nightmare you do not want to happen. Curfew anyone?

Do you really think it's been stopped? Islamic extremism will always be an issue. The best thing that can be done is t oleave them alone, or come to a compromise with them. They are still human, just very offended humans. If american culture did not spread so vastly and violently we would not have this issue. They see a mcdonalds down the street as an assault on their culture.



But we have no proof that its being protected. How do we know whats true and whats not. I agree with entspeak in that we can't have freedom and total security. The NSA is the king of spying, they know how to do it without you noticing. Im sure they know how to do it without congress noticing. Ben Franklin once said that "Those who would sacrifice privacy for security, deserve neither." So by defending the NSA you accept that they invade privacy, using "security" as a cover. Do you really want the government taking every piece of personal information from you and your family? I don't think the NSA should have a right to do anything. Because in the long run what do they produce other than a bunch of sneaky caniving fools, that think security is reason to invade another persons home.


Think about Ben Franklin, one of the founding fathers of this country, and what he said. As a free people we have privacy, and as secure people we have none. What do you think this country represents to those that want to emigrate here? Freedom or Security?

So they decide to kill and destroy anything that threatens their religious practice and we are going to compromise with this? How? By becoming as them? That is the position of the extremists. If you do not want to be an infidel in their eyes, you must succumb to their value system. Where is the compromise to come from? Should we lock down all international media? Should we ban all McDonalds outside the USA? I don't see any compromising, especially after 30 years of such extremism coming at us. We have finally had enough and we will not tolerate their killing of any more people, including Americans.

You ever wonder if the procedures put in play by J. Edgar Hoover ever went away? Hilary sure did find the FBI files important. Can we trust there to be a government? NO! Do we have to? Yes. Do we need to find a way to trust the government? Yes. Do you trust your mailman? Do you have a choice? Do you get the mail and your neighbors don't know what is in it? You hope so. Will you keep the mailman delivering your mail?

Franklin also said that it is an essential practice to keep an eye on foreign interventions. He held it important to eavesdrop on foreign entities.


Can you actually point to one person who has lost their freedoms, besides the commerce clause? If the NSA or the FBI considered you an threat by your words and found you are not, would you have lost any rights? As to anyone knowing your personal affairs, if the government were to expose this, they would be more then liable, so don't sweat, unless you are criminal in activity. The government has ordained that if in routine surveillance, they find criminal activity, they can use the surveillance against you. That is an issue to be of contention, not that they are surveying. I imagine that anyone coming here would be finding so much freedom, they would wonder how it is we can be so free and still be safe. I call it the 2nd amendment.

First off I'm not old enough to get the mail addressed to me. Secondly, J. Edgar Hoover instituted such policies to prevent communism from entering america. The NSA can't crutch on preventing terrorists from coming to America, because theyre already here. Look all Im saying is that with the unauthorized surveillance and the "emergency" power the this fool of a president is seizing for himself. We are well on our way to a totalitarian state. Congress backs off everytime he takes more power because "He needs them to keep terrorism out of america." By allowing the internet, anyone and everyone has unrestricted access to terrorist material i.e.: the anarchist cookbook, mein kampf, etc. Anything a fanatical young anti-government person needs. Best of all its free and untraceable.

That huge rant is just for effect. If the NSA and the government want to do something it needs to be documented by a public court and kept availible to the people that do still believe that there is a right and wrong way to do things.



Should I have to? If I do than we are in some serious trouble. If someone has lost their rights due to suspection of terrorism, there better be some good proof. NO ONE should ever lose their rights. The UDCR (Universal Declaration of Civil Rights) clearly states that people have the right to due process, privacy, and non- biased trial; something that people suspected of terrorism will be denied through things such as the Patriot Act, and This unauthorized spying.

In short, Spying is wrong!!! The Denial of basic civil rights is Wrong!!! The NSA should be nonexistant and the executive shoved violently back in its place. By passing the laws the executive has pushed for they have far overstepped their bounds and are undermining our basic system of checks and balances. They all need to be put back in check.