The Imperial President (Op-Ed from The Washington Times!?!)

(I don't know how this one got past the Editors at The Washington Times, but this IS actually a strong questioning of our new "...unitary executive" and what Founding Father James Madison would have thought of the concept. Truly shocking to find this in The Washington Times.)

The imperial president

By Nat Hentoff
January 30, 2006

James Madison's notes on the 1787 Constitutional Convention show the extensive debate on what limits there should be on the chief executive. Then, in the Federalist Papers, exhorting New York voters to ratify the founding document, Madison continued the debate on presidential powers, which persists in the current controversies on the scope of what President Bush insists is his "inherent" constitutional authority in the war on terrorism. With Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation process blessedly over, it's useful to focus this continuing debate in the context of Madison's concerns. In the Federalist No. 47, Madison said plainly: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Madison went on (and this is what troubles me about the presence of John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court) to say: "Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of (our) system... The preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct."

Justice Roberts and Judge Alito have shown excessive deference to executive government powers. On Dec. 16 on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" Bruce Fein, former associate deputy attorney general in President Reagan's administration, and a continually challenging conservative constitutional scholar explained why this continuing debate on the sweeping powers of "the unitary executive" is the most crucial of all controversies during the Bush presidency so far.

"We must protect the Constitution," Mr. Fein said, "for those yet to be born whether (the future) Congress or the White House is controlled by Republicans or Democrats. We need an aggressive fight against terrorism, but we can do it without compromising the Constitution... If he (George W. Bush) insists he can do anything (against the Bill of Rights) in the war against terrorism, then he is indistinguishable from King George III." That led me to look again at the Declaration of Independence's list of "repeated injuries and usurpations" by King George III, headed by the charge: "He has refused his Assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." Some members of the White House press corps have tried to get during the infrequent presidential press conferences direct and expanded answers from Mr. Bush on what limits he himself recognizes to presidential powers in this war that can go on past this generation. His customary, cursory answer is that he does not go beyond the Constitution.
James Madison might demur.

(more at link below)

<http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060129-102751-5077r.htm>

As far as I'm concerned- you might as well take the Times if you live around DC. At least you know for sure when they're lying to you. The Post is far more subtle- though they can't even write a science article anymore without slanting the copy to suit some (generally far right) agenda.

I just shake my head at some of the utter crap I see from that paper.

:kick:

important.