Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
Absinthe and Cookies
Accidental Verbosity
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable
All Day Permanent Red
All Things Jennifer
Ann Althouse
The American Mind
Arguing with signposts
Arms and influence
The Astute Blogger
Asymmeterical Information
B-Town Blog Boys
Backcountry Conservative
Balloon Juice
Bananas and Such Begging to Differ
The Bemusement Park
Bewtween the Coasts
Betsy's Page
The Big Picture
Blogs for Bush
The Blog of Daniel Sale
Boots and Sabers
The Bully Pulpit
Cadillac Tight
Caffeinated Musing
California Yankee
Captain's Quarters
Chicago Report
Chicagoland of Confusion
Citizen Smash
Collected Thoughts
The Command Post
Common Sense and Wonder
Confessions Of A Political Junkie
The Conservative Philosopher
Conservative Revolution
Conservative and Right
Cranial Cavity
The Daily Lemon
Daly Thoughts
DANEgerus Weblog
Dart Frog on a Cactus
Dean's World Dear Free World
Brad DeLong
Democracy Project
The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon
Down to the Piraeus
Drink this...
Earl's log
Earthly Passions
The Education Wonks
the evangelical outpost
Eye of the Storm
Firepower Forward
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
The Friendly Ghost
Fruits and Votes
Functional, if not decorative
The Galvin Opinion
The Glittering Eye
Haight Speech
The Hedgehog Report
Heh. Indeed.
Hennessy's View
High Desert Skeptic
The Hillary Project
History and Perceptions
Robert Holcomb
I love Jet Noise
Idlewild South
Independent Thinker
Insults Unpunished
Internet Ronin
Ipse Dixit
It Can't Rain All The Time...
The Jay Blog
Jen Speaks
Joefish's Freshwater Blog
John Lemon blog
Judicious Asininity
Jump In, The Water's Fine!
Just On The Other Side
A Knight's Blog
The Kudzu Files
Let's Try Freedom
Liberty Father
Life and Law
David Limbaugh
Locke, or Demosthenes?
Mad Minerva
Gary Manca
Mark the Pundit
Mediocre but Unexciting
Mental Hiccups
Miller's Time
Mind of Mog
Minorities For Bush
Mr. Hawaii
The Moderate Voice
The Modulator
Much Ado
Mungowitz End
My opinion counts
my thoughts, without the penny charge
My Word
Neophyte Pundit
Neutiquam erro
New England Republican
NewsHawk Daily
neWs Round-Up
No Pundit Intended
Nobody asked me, but...
Obsidian Wings
Occam's Toothbrush
On the Fritz
On the Third Hand
One Fine Jay
Out of Context
Outside the Beltway
Suman Palit
Passionate America
Brian Patton
Peppermint Patty
John Pierce
The Politicker
The Politburo Diktat
Political Annotation
Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect
Power Politics
Practical Penumbra
Priorities & Frivolities
Prof. Blogger's Pontifications
Pros and Cons
protein wisdom
Pundit Heads
The Queen of All Evil
Quotes, Thoughts, and other Ramblings
Ramblings' Journal
Random Acts of Kindness
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ranting Rationalist
Read My Lips
Reagan Country
Red State Diaries
A Republican's Blog
The Review
Rhett Write
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wingin-It
Right Wing News
Right Voices
Rightward Reasonings
riting on the wall
Rooftop Report
The Sake of Argument
Sailor in the Desert
Secular Sermons
Sha Ka Ree
Shaking Spears
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
The Skeptician
The Skewed
Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff
small dead animals
Sneakeasy's Joint
SoCal Law Blog
A Solo Dialogue
Some Great Reward
Southern Musings
Speed of Thought...
Spin Killer
Matthew J. Stinson
A Stitch in Haste
Stop the ACLU
The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public
The Strata-Sphere
Stuff about
Suman Palit
Target Centermass
Templar Pundit
The Temporal Globe
Tex the Pontificator
Texas Native
think about it...
Tobacco Road Fogey
Toner Mishap
Tony Talks Tech
The Trimblog
Truth. Quante-fied.
Twenty First Century Republican
Unlocked Wordhoard
Use The Forks!!
Ut Humiliter Opinor
Vista On Current Events
Vox Baby
Jeff Vreeland's Blog
Wall of Sleep
Weapons of Mass Discussion
Who Knew?
The Window Manager
Winning Again!
WizBang Tech
The World Around You
The Yin Blog
You Big Mouth, You!
Zygote-Design - Alabama Weblogs

AJC's 2004 Election Politics Sites and Blogs
Campaign Finance
Welcome to World O' Blogs
WRKO-AM's "Political Junkies" list
Yahoo! Directory Political Weblogs
Young Elephant

Who Links Here

Thursday, February 16, 2006
Will is Right
By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 9:12 pm

First off, George Will was on target in his column this morning. The President is asserting powers that he does not have by making a vague Article II claim and by retroactively deciding that the AUMF lets him do essentially whatever he wants if it can be even vaguely tied to 9/11. As such, the term “monarchical” fits the bill:

The next time a president asks Congress to pass something akin to what Congress passed on Sept. 14, 2001 — the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) — the resulting legislation might be longer than Proust’s “Remembrance of Things Past.” Congress, remembering what is happening today, might stipulate all the statutes and constitutional understandings that it does not intend the act to repeal or supersede.

But, then, perhaps no future president will ask for such congressional involvement in the gravest decision government makes — going to war. Why would future presidents ask, if the present administration successfully asserts its current doctrine? It is that whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be. This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration’s stance that warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency targeting American citizens on American soil is a legal exercise of the president’s inherent powers as commander in chief, even though it violates the clear language of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was written to regulate wartime surveillance.

Still, not all agree. I noted that Ed Morrissey played the war card earlier today-i.e., the notion that a president has expanded powers in a time of war as Commander-in-Chief. Of course, there is a small problem with the war card if we are going to use in the legal realm: we aren’t legally at war. Even if we were, I dispute the notion that such a situation automatically enhances the presidents power vis-a-vis the Congress just because we are “at war”-especially when those war powers are being used, at least in part, on US soil.

However, there has been no declaration of war, so to pretend like there is a special legal condition that affects the constitutional order is simply incorrect. Yes, in the general sense we are war. There are troops deployed and people are dying and there are very real threats that must be dealt with. But by that definition the last time we weren’t at war was some time back in 1941.

(I will grant Morrisey is correct for taking Will to task for referring to FISA as a law designed for wartime surveillance. I think Will was sloppy in the last sentence of the above-quoted paragraph. However, I still think Morrissey gets it wrong: FISA is in place for any kind of surveillance of domestic communications, so it wholly applicable here).

I would reiterate a point on this war issue I made sometime back: do we want to indefinitely imbue the president (and again, the next president could be Hillary Clinton or fill-in-the-blank) with extra-special wartime powers for perhaps decades until the long war on terror is utterly finished? Is this really a healthy thing to pursue for our democracy? As I wrote in December:

To put it in simplistic terms: if non-wartime is “normal” and wartime is “extraordinary” are we now saying that “extraordinary” is the “new normal”?

If that is true, let’s amend the Constitution and rewrite the laws. “Normal” requires regular rules. Only “Extraordinary” should allow for unusual, temporary powers.

As such, even if Bush is now a “wartime president” and will be such for the next three years, then we have to determine the proper institutional parameters for this “new normal.”

The bottom line is, the fact the there is a serious threat that must be faced doesn’t mean that the president (this one, or any other) can just ignore the law because they think that it is the right thing to do.

And Ed overplays the whole war notion by not really addressing the main issue, but concluding by asserting the need for unified command:

Congress needs to exercise care in its authorization for military force, and then let the American people exercise their check on the presidency by voting the “monarch” out of office. That’s the way the Constitution is structured, not to have 535 individuals micromanaging activities that clearly fall under the normal operation of war.

No one is asking for micro-management, nor is there any serious dispute about the need for a unified CinC. However, all those of use who are concerned with the program ask is that the appropriate checks and balances be put into place and that the president act within the bounds of established law.

And then we have Andrew McCarthy writing at NRO who takes Will to task as well(he calls the piece “a diatribe”), stating that since the whole thing is foreign policy, it is therefore the president’s realm anyway:

The administration’s position, and the program, is pertinent to governance in the field of foreign relations. In that field, whether Will likes it or not, the president has primacy — primacy of the same sort the Supreme Court enjoys in interpreting the Constitution and Congress in funding governmental operations. The president does not enjoy such primacy because of some Bush administration ipse dixit. It has been the law ever since we began living under the Constitution.

Yes, the president has primacy, but primacy is not totality. Not only did Will appropriately cite some of the ways in which the Founders intended the Congress to be involved in foreign affairs, I would also point anyone interested to a list I made last week.

A plain reading of the Constitution of the United States reveals the fact the Founders intended Congress to have a role in foreign policy and national security policy. Indeed, that many conservatives seem to be selectively reading the constitution to fit their view of things is troubling (and hypocritical since that is normally the charge that conservatives level at liberals).

Yes, McCarthy then quotes a number of Supreme Court cases that back his position about the President and foreign policy. All well and good, but he underplays a number of issues and focuses on items that are wholly foreign in nature. No one is arguing that the President does not have a very free hand in his action outside the US when pursing national security policy. However, to ignore the domestic side of this equation obfuscates the debate.

Further, McCarthy overplays his hand when he tries to downplay powers, such as the Senate’s role in treaties, to somehow deride the notion that the congress has any foreign policy role to play. He also makes far too little of the idea that congress can declare war.

I will concur with McCarthy, however, that Will’s use of the necessary and proper clause is a bit off. However, there is still the general fact the congress does have the power to set down in statute a good deal about the behavior of the president within the government of the United States.

At least I know that I am not wholly alone on this matter, as John Henke at QandO wrote today that Will made “makes excellent points.” I also concur with his assessment of Morrissey’s line about Will not being a conservative:

Incidentally and inexplicably, I note that Captain Ed blogs on this story, writing that George Will “isn’t exactly a conservative, but he usually covers the center well enough.” What the…?!?!?! In what alternate political reality is George Will not a conservative?

Perhaps this is evidence of Glenn Greenwald’s hypothesis that “‘conservatism’ is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as “liberal” is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.” I simply cannot imagine the thought process that would lead one to conclude that George Will is a centrist.

It was an odd statement, to be sure.

And really, I keep wondering how the President’s defenders would be reacting right now if it was Bill Clinton (or Al Gore, or John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton) who was doing what George W. Bush is currently doing. I suspect that any many cases, at least, the response would be quite different (and, vice versa, there are a number of current critics who would be in support).

Filed under: US Politics, War on Terror | |Send TrackBack

Fruits and Votes » Blog Archive » linked with Fruits and Votes linked with Why Republicans need not fear a unilateral President Clinton

1 Comment »

  1. Fruits and Votes linked with Why Republicans need not fear a unilateral President Clinton

    Pingback by Fruits and Votes » Blog Archive » — Sunday, February 19, 2006 @ 9:11 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

The trackback url for this post is:

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Leave a comment

Take a Look At This!

Visitors Since 2/15/03

PoliBlog is the Host site for:

A TTLB Community


College Athletics

Wealth Management

Discount Golf Gloves

Pain Medication

Paper Shredders


Powered by WordPress