I'd like to say, first of all, it's been fun being here for the primary season. I think I made my account right around Super Tuesday, so my entire Daily Kos life has been through the eyes of an Obama partisan and someone who mistrusts Clinton. But now, I hope to see this all change. I hope to see people attack McCain (which is what will be forthcoming). I hope to see real policy discussions, real debates about real issues. No more anti-Clinton slime after tonight.
EDIT: Rec This Up! This is a big story, as per the comments. I COMMAND YOU! REC THIS! YOU HAVE NO CHOICE! CONGRESS CAN DO NOTHING!
Update 2:
During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.
"I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama.
ANYHOW. To the issue at hand!
Many "Obama republicans", I feel, will be attracted to our candidate because they believe in a government that respects our liberties and the seperation of powers originally outlined in the Constitution. Some conservatives believe that one of the problems with the Bush administration has been its complete rejection of the limits our founding fathers put on the executive branch. Dick Cheney has essentially declared himself an independent branch of government, free from any sort of reproach from "Congress". The Bush administration believes it can block people from testifying under the guise of executive privilege.
Is John McCain going to be any different? Well, let's look at McCain's new Deputy Communications Director, Michael Goldfarb. This is what Goldfarb wrote about former Sen. George Mitchell's request for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (HuffPo)
Mitchell's less than persuasive answer [to whether withdrawal timetables "somehow infringe on the president's powers as commander in chief?"]: "Congress is a coequal branch of government...the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government."
True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.
Not only is it stupid, it's wrong. Near dictatorial power? Um... NO! We didn't want a slightly better King George. We wanted a DEMOCRACY. The antithesis of a Dictatorship is a Democracy. This is what the Constitution says:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
The advice and consent of the Senate. To make Treaties. Treaties, Goldfarb. Do you know what treaties are? Probably not. They involve diplomacy. So I guess Goldfarb is right. McCain's "shoot first, ask questions later" diplomacy doesn't require treaties.
Repeat after me, Mr. Goldfarb. Checks and balances.
So if you're out there and you know a conservative who is concerned about the abbrogation of federalism, and a massive Big Brother state where an Executive Branch can do whatever it wants, let him or her know about this.
But, I know what you're thinking. This isn't enough of a connection. But, here is a Boston Globe questionaire about the President's power, and how a candidate stands.
Here's the article, and some snipets.
- Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications.
Aha. I see.
More:
- In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? And specifically, I'm thinking about non-imminent threat situations.
Well he doesn't. But if there is an imminent threat, the president has to act in America's security interest.
Keeping that caveat in there. I see. So unless there's an imminent threat. Well, I'll make sure to bookmark this.
- Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? Is that beyond Congress' authority?
It's beyond Congress's authority to micromanage wars. Congress has the power of the purse and the power to declare wars; the President is responsible for leading the armed forces as Commander in Chief.
We've heard this rationale before. Rather dictatorial, I believe. Geroge Bush's rationale was, "No! I don't care what the will of the people is! I'm the Commander guy!" Isn't this eerily reminiscent?
- Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that, under the Congressional authorization of the use of force, the U.S. can hold even American citizens under the law of war if they are enemy combatants. But the Court also said that U.S. citizens must have due process to challenge their detention. And I think that is very important when it comes to American citizens.
Again, McCain uses more equivocation and the terrifyingly Orwellian term "enemy combattants". Not only does he say he reserves the right to hold even American citizens under the law of war, he also ONLY says this about American citizens. "It is very important when it comes to American citizens." So, when you were in the Hanoi Hilton, the Vietnamese were right to hold you for six years? I mean, that is the logical end of your claim. You, to them, were an enemy combattant. So they didn't have any obligation to let you go, because you were not a Vietnamese citizen.
- Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated directly to the president himself?
Yes, the law recognizes a "deliberative process" type of executive privilege that is broader than direct communications to the President. So while we should not do anything to inhibit the communications between a president and his advisers, as President I will do my utmost to accommodate Congressional requests for information.
Uh-huh. Executive privilege. We've heard this before. Not only from Bush, but from Nixon. McCain's new motto: "Hey Congress! Go fuck yourself!"
Then, hilariously, watch this: He starts becoming evasive.
- Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
On that one, the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in the Boumedienne case and it is expected to rule early next year on that question. So I will be interested in seeing how the Court rules.
- Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
McCain declined to answer this question.
- Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
McCain declined to answer this question.
And then, after not even telling who his legal advisors were, not even saying ONE THING that the Bush administration has done wrong, he offers this:
- Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
I agree. These are part of the judgment that the American people need.
Indeed, John. Indeed. It's part of the judgment that we need. And that's why we won't be voting for you! They're part of the judgment, but you won't even answer all the questions??!! Laughable.