The Genie and the Bottle: Executive Power and the Next President
The question of George W. Bush’s legacy is a fascinating one. I’m thinking less about Iraq and bringing democracy to the middle east, centerpieces of a world view that seems by turns savage and quixotic, than the supervening insistence on executive authority. Over the last seven years Bush/Cheney has set a precedent for what the New York Times’ Adam Liptak vapidly described yesterday as a “distinctively muscular vision of executive power.”I would add that the kind of sneering condescension that Bush has shown to congress, the free press, and the American people implies little in the way of muscularity, much less strength of character. But the bigger point is that whoever is elected in November is going to have to build on the Bush legacy or resolve to relinquish some power. Pick your metaphor: genie back in the bottle, toothpaste back in the tube, snakes back in the peanut can.
Anyway, the Times piece at least raises a question that I'm a little surprised has not been asked more often of the candidates. I for one hope this changes in the days and weeks to come. But for now we do have this cogent piece of journalism by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe who surveyed the candidates on just this topic.
Not surprisingly, repubs Giuliani, Huckabee and Thompson declined to participate. And Romney had few reservations about Bush's use of power.
Clinton and Obama replied in terms that emphasised executive restraint and responsibility while stopping short of promising not to use signing statements in the exercise of presidential prerogative.
The Democrats said a president must obey laws and treaties that restrict surveillance and interrogation. They also said that the Constitution does not allow a president to hold US citizens without charges as "enemy combatants" - even though Bush has won court rulings upholding his right to indefinitely imprison citizens suspected of terrorist links.
There were some differences among the Democrats. For example, Clinton, a veteran of congressional investigations of her husband's administration during the 1990's, embraced a stronger view of a president's power to use executive privilege to keep information secret from Congress than some rivals.
And while all the Democrats condemned Bush's use of signing statements, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama each said that they would use them too - just less aggressively. Obama said the problem with Bush's signing statements is not the device itself, but rather that Bush has invoked legal theories that most constitutional scholars consider "dubious" when reserving his alleged right to bypass certain laws.
"No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush administration has gone much further than that," Obama said.
By contrast, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson called for an end to signing statements altogether.
