The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Executive Branch in two short sections, the greatest and most important power enumerated being the veto. The Founding Fathers were so concerned about even the appearance of monarchy that they took great pains to limit the power of the executive branch and to point out how different the President would be from King George.


From Federalist #67:There is hardly any part of the system which could have been atten ed with greater difficulty in the arrangement of it than this; and there is, perhaps, none which has been inveighed against with less candor or criticised with less judgment.

Here the writers against the Constitution seem to have taken pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation. Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions in opposition to the intended President of the United States; not merely as the embryo, but as the full-grown progeny, of that detested parent. To establish the pretended affinity, they have not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction. The authorities of a magistrate, in few instances greater, in some instances less, than those of a governor of New York, have been magnified into more than royal prerogatives. He has been decorated with attributes superior in dignity and splendor to those of a king of Great Britain. He has been shown to us with the diadem sparkling on his brow and the imperial purple flowing in his train. He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.

Attempts so extravagant as these to disfigure or, it might rather be said, to metamorphose the object, render it necessary to take an accurate view of its real nature and form: in order as well to ascertain its true aspect and genuine appearance, as to unmask the disingenuity and expose the fallacy of the counterfeit resemblances which have been so insidiously, as well as industriously, propagated.

In the execution of this task, there is no man who would not find it an arduous effort either to behold with moderation, or to treat with seriousness, the devices, not less weak than wicked, which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion in relation to the subject. They so far exceed the usual though unjustifiable licenses of party artifice, that even in a disposition the most candid and tolerant, they must force the sentiments which favor an indulgent construction of the conduct of political adversaries to give place to a voluntary and unreserved indignation. It is impossible not to bestow the imputation of deliberate imposture and deception upon the gross pretense of a similitude between a king of Great Britain and a magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President of the United States. It is still more impossible to withhold that imputation from the rash and barefaced expedients which have been employed to give success to the attempted imposition.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/federalist/federalist-60-69/federalist.67.shtml
IMO, we've fallen very far from the founding tree in regards to the Executive branch as we see an ever-increasing number of signing statements and blatant subversions of the law. The powers of the Executive are clearly defined within the Constitution and elegantly explained by Hamilton in Federalist 67-77.

and I feel any attempt at a unitary executive from either side of the aisle is an affront to what we hold dearest

which then begs the question: Why do authoritarian Conservatives hate America?

sorry for the hi-jack

nevermind.

yes we'd like to hear from the opposition:

something about the country is safer when one guy is making the decisions
Cheney has spoken alot on this, dig up his notes. they go all the way back to Nixon. He also used the same ideas in defending Iran Contra. You know how dare Congress stop the President

please enlighten us

and I feel any attempt at a unitary executive from either side of the aisle is an affront to what we hold dearest

which then begs the question: Why do authoritarian Conservatives hate America?

sorry for the hi-jack

nevermind.

yes we'd like to hear from the opposition:

something about the country is safer when one guy is making the decisions
Cheney has spoken alot on this, dig up his notes. they go all the way back to Nixon. He also used the same ideas in defending Iran Contra. You know how dare Congress stop the President

please enlighten us


Actually, Hamilton makes a very strong case in favor of a single, strong, executive as opposed to serveral, weak ones:

THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.

There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention?

The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

The ingredients which constitute safety in the repub lican sense are, first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility.

Those politicians and statesmen who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justice of their views, have declared in favor of a single Executive and a numerous legislature. They have with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification of the former, and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand, while they have, with equal propriety, considered the latter as best adapted to deliberation and wisdom, and best calculated to conciliate the confidence of the people and to secure their privileges and interests.

That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.

This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part, to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him. Of the first, the two Consuls of Rome may serve as an example; of the last, we shall find examples in the constitutions of several of the States. New York and New Jersey, if I recollect right, are the only States which have intrusted the executive authority wholly to single men.1 Both these methods of destroying the unity of the Executive have their partisans; but the votaries of an executive council are the most numerous. They are both liable, if not to equal, to similar objections, and may in most lights be examined in conjunction. -- Federalist #70

None of that, however, means that the executive has the authority to subvert the law, even in times of crisis or war or invasion.

crowd

hmmm prophetic

"Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man"

crowd

hmmm prophetic

"Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man"


not really, I did read the posts above, and have been thinking about a reply, but for the most part I agree with Ken's interpretation, and I've been too darn busy this weekend to really post....perhaps tomorrow, as I DO think it is an interesting discussion.

This is what frustrates me about Al Gore and infuriates me about all the other Dem candidates. Bush's power-grab is nowhere in the discussions. I understand they're trying to make this about them and not Bush, but the next president will inherit all the power he's illegally seized.

This is the single most important reason impeachment should never have been "off the table."

Al Gore discusses this a lot in his book. He seems like the one person who would be most able/willing to right the ship, and yet he won't run.

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Executive Branch in two short sections, the greatest and most important power enumerated being the veto. The Founding Fathers were so concerned about even the appearance of monarchy that they took great pains to limit the power of the executive branch and to point out how different the President would be from King George.


From Federalist #67:There is hardly any part of the system which could have been atten ed with greater difficulty in the arrangement of it than this; and there is, perhaps, none which has been inveighed against with less candor or criticised with less judgment.

Here the writers against the Constitution seem to have taken pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation. Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions in opposition to the intended President of the United States; not merely as the embryo, but as the full-grown progeny, of that detested parent. To establish the pretended affinity, they have not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction. The authorities of a magistrate, in few instances greater, in some instances less, than those of a governor of New York, have been magnified into more than royal prerogatives. He has been decorated with attributes superior in dignity and splendor to those of a king of Great Britain. He has been shown to us with the diadem sparkling on his brow and the imperial purple flowing in his train. He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.

Attempts so extravagant as these to disfigure or, it might rather be said, to metamorphose the object, render it necessary to take an accurate view of its real nature and form: in order as well to ascertain its true aspect and genuine appearance, as to unmask the disingenuity and expose the fallacy of the counterfeit resemblances which have been so insidiously, as well as industriously, propagated.

In the execution of this task, there is no man who would not find it an arduous effort either to behold with moderation, or to treat with seriousness, the devices, not less weak than wicked, which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion in relation to the subject. They so far exceed the usual though unjustifiable licenses of party artifice, that even in a disposition the most candid and tolerant, they must force the sentiments which favor an indulgent construction of the conduct of political adversaries to give place to a voluntary and unreserved indignation. It is impossible not to bestow the imputation of deliberate imposture and deception upon the gross pretense of a similitude between a king of Great Britain and a magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President of the United States. It is still more impossible to withhold that imputation from the rash and barefaced expedients which have been employed to give success to the attempted imposition.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/federalist/federalist-60-69/federalist.67.shtml
IMO, we've fallen very far from the founding tree in regards to the Executive branch as we see an ever-increasing number of signing statements and blatant subversions of the law. The powers of the Executive are clearly defined within the Constitution and elegantly explained by Hamilton in Federalist 67-77.

I'm sorry but aren't signing statements a declaration if intent rather than a subversion? Like the veto, they seem to me to be a challenge by the office of the President to Congressional power to legislate law. Followoing through on a signing statement is a challenge and that can be answered in the Courts, which I believe was the intent all along.This thread is finally making it's way to the Bush Bash that it was intended to be and we will be arguing on more comtemporary terms once again and common sense and observaation will allow intrusion into this high minded conversation. :)

I'm sorry but aren't signing statements a declaration if intent rather than a subversion? Like the veto, they seem to me to be a challenge by the office of the President to Congressional power to legislate law. Followoing through on a signing statement is a challenge and that can be answered in the Courts, which I believe was the intent all along.This thread is finally making it's way to the Bush Bash that it was intended to be and we will be arguing on more comtemporary terms once again and common sense and observaation will allow intrusion into this high minded conversation. :)


Once a bill is signed into law it is, well, it's the law. The President can't say "Well, I'm only going to observe this or that part of it" or "I'm signing this but...." Until we pass a line item veto amendment, he is Constitutionally bound to execute the law as written or veto it. There is no in-between.


Bush bash? I was thinking back way further than that. Bush isn't so bad compared to some of the others.

Once a bill is signed into law it is, well, it's the law. The President can't say "Well, I'm only going to observe this or that part of it" or "I'm signing this but...." Until we pass a line item veto amendment, he is Constitutionally bound to execute the law as written or veto it. There is no in-between.


Bush bash? I was thinking back way further than that. Bush isn't so bad compared to some of the others.

A signing statement is to announce that the President believes his powers are being infringed and that he is not bound by it. It is a challenge to the legality of the legislation and can be handled through the court system. It is the proper course to follow. Bush is not the first to use it and won't be the last. Signing statements are not a good example of Presidential Imperialism because they are not the final word. All they do is serve notice that the President is prepared to go to court over the issue. I was answering the post by hoo and he did specifically use Bush as an example, further down Al Gore was invoked by another member as the champion of freedom as we know it. :)

all Presidents from Washington to Clinton - 600
Bush - 800 and counting

all Presidents use signing statements, Bush took it to a whole new arena

and it wasn't Ken who did the Bush bash, twas me and I apologized but given todays situation if we view this admins behavior a look through the ole FP microscope....

which is why , given their actions I want to see it explained.

all Presidents from Washington to Clinton - 600
Bush - 800 and counting

all Presidents use signing statements, Bush took it to a whole new arena

and it wasn't Ken who did the Bush bash, twas me and I apologized but given todays situation if we view this admins behavior a look through the ole FP microscope....

which is why , given their actions I want to see it explained.

Well, this is an intellectual discussion beyond my education but the signing bonus issue is one where Bush can rightfully be defended. How many isn't the issue, the legality is and they are an accepted practice. The number is more an indication of the depth of the political division at the time of a Presidents tenure than of that particular man's imperial ambitions. These are contentious times.

because the first 6 years of his tenure he had HIS folks in Congress writing t he laws. So how do you defend a guy who has tallied more signing statements than all other Presidents combined while sitting over a 'friendly' Congress for 2/3 of his tenure?

No, they use it as a loophole. They had no oversight (see friendly Congress) and have used this item as a way to expand Presidential power. again, see my note that the first directive of this admin to its legal staff was to look for ways to expand power of the executive.

So your 'contentious times' of his tenure is BS. No President has ever had such a 'lay down' Congress and political capital like this one. How many vetos in those first 6 years?
hundreds of signing statements and most of them to put t he executive above the law

Well, this is an intellectual discussion beyond my education but the signing bonus issue is one where Bush can rightfully be defended. How many isn't the issue, the legality is and they are an accepted practice. The number is more an indication of the depth of the political division at the time of a Presidents tenure than of that particular man's imperial ambitions. These are contentious times.


There is nothing wrong with signing statements, per se. Using them to define the understanding of the law or to specify the intent to create a new department to execute the law, etc.... are valid and appropriate uses of signing statements. The use of them, however, as line-item vetos is unConstitutional. The President's negative authority stops once the bill is signed into law.

I'd like to keep the discussion focused more on the Executive branch and arguments for or against the limits of its power and for or against the expansion of its power rather than on one specific administration. As you and ATP pointed out, every president has used them and there is ample precedent.


So, back to the OP.... is the Executive branch, as defined in the Constitution and explained within Federalist 67-77, too strong, too weak, just right for today's America and why?

Well, this is an intellectual discussion beyond my education....


Bullsh*t. :)

Read the link I provided and comment.

How many isn't the issue, the legality is and they are an accepted practice.
I am very uneasy about signing statements. However, they are a bit of a slippery issue. At what point does a "statement of intent" amount to a de facto amendment of a bill/law by the President. That would certainly be unconstitutional. Howver, it cannot be ignored that whenever the executive branch enforces the law, it is required to interpret it to a lesser or greater extent. Oftentimes, such interpretations require administartive rules and regulations. Guidance from the courts would really help.

all Presidents from Washington to Clinton - 600
Bush - 800 and counting

all Presidents use signing statements, Bush took it to a whole new arena

and it wasn't Ken who did the Bush bash, twas me and I apologized but given todays situation if we view this admins behavior a look through the ole FP microscope....

which is why , given their actions I want to see it explained.

and it was his hand selected DOJ "yes men" who willingly gave him all of the signing statements he wanted at a moments notice...

I am very uneasy about signing statements. However, they are a bit of a slippery issue. At what point does a "statement of intent" amount to a de facto amendment of a bill/law by the President. That would certainly be unconstitutional. Howver, it cannot be ignored that whenever the executive branch enforces the law, it is required to interpret it to a lesser or greater extent. Oftentimes, such interpretations require administartive rules and regulations. Guidance from the courts would really help.
about signing statements...I truly believe that right now they're being used to take us to unjustified and unsupported war with Iran...

because the first 6 years of his tenure he had HIS folks in Congress writing t he laws. So how do you defend a guy who has tallied more signing statements than all other Presidents combined while sitting over a 'friendly' Congress for 2/3 of his tenure?

No, they use it as a loophole. They had no oversight (see friendly Congress) and have used this item as a way to expand Presidential power. again, see my note that the first directive of this admin to its legal staff was to look for ways to expand power of the executive.

So your 'contentious times' of his tenure is BS. No President has ever had such a 'lay down' Congress and political capital like this one. How many vetos in those first 6 years?
hundreds of signing statements and most of them to put t he executive above the law

Nothing he can do from his office will put him "above the law." You are makng the signing statements more than they are. I think you do it out of hatred rather than accute insight because you are just flat out wrong. He says he ain't agonna do it and congress can still say, oh yes you will. They just gotta be prepared for a Constitutional showdown at SCOTUS, he is when he says he ain't agonna. Tell me, do you believe Congress is above attempting to step on the Executive powers?

about signing statements...I truly believe that right now they're being used to take us to unjustified and unsupported war with Iran...
Well, in this situation, I'm not sure how a signing statementy is different than a speech regarding how the administartion views a piece of legislation.

Nothing he can do from his office will put him "above the law." You are makng the signing statements more than they are. I think you do it out of hatred rather than accute insight because you are just flat out wrong. He says he ain't agonna do it and congress can still say, oh yes you will. They just gotta be prepared for a Constitutional showdown at SCOTUS, he is when he says he ain't agonna. Tell me, do you believe Congress is above attempting to step on the Executive powers?

on how Bush "succeeded" on establishing Guantanamo through signing statement drafted for him, hand delivered to him, without ANY oversight by the Office of Legal Council. Bending the law does not mean you are within the law...and envolking executive privelege without any congressional oversight is not typically seen as equal "checks and balances".

read it, watch it, learn it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/themes/olc.html