On November 8th, 2006; basking in the luminous afterglow of a wave election that returned the Democratic Party to the seat of legislative power for the first time in a decade; a palpable sensation was felt throughout much of America.
Reverberating loudly through the heads of the Democratic constituency were the words that many had waited nearly six full years to one day hear: We were going to have subpoena power; George Bush would have a Congress to answer to.
Let it never be said that the administration of President Bush has no productive qualities. If the past year has taught us anything, it is that this body has the absolute strength of misguided conviction, where the Democratic establishment lacks it in moral obligation.
Faced with readily apparent evidence of a Presidency perhaps unparalleled in its criminality, those in the opposition party charged with protecting the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic have failed to call it to account; apparently fearful of overplaying their hand in an advantageous electoral environment.
As a result, time will expire on the Bush Presidency; and most, if not all of its officials will be free to explore the DC cocktail circuit, and exchange sociopathic guffaws with Henry Kissinger, Oliver North, and other assorted ghosts of unpunished atrocities past.
That at this point, this may be unavoidable does not absolve us of our responsibility to make sure the next George Bush does not have access to the tools the current one has used so successfully in subjugating the actions of his co-equal branches. We must use this national climate to our advantage in reforming the relationship between the President and the Congress.
One of my great disappointments thus far in the primary season is the absolute neglect with which this extremely essential topic has been treated. I understand the motivations of those after the seeming eternity of this administration who may desire to expose the other side to its own practices; but the altruistic pursuit is to sacrifice power in the defense of our national integrity.
What we need now is a firm question and a firm commitment. What question, you may ask? Simple.
Senator Obama/Clinton/Edwards, what is your position on the theory of Executive Privilege? In your first term in office, would you be amenable to signing legislation that would both limit and define situations when its invocation would be permissible?
Now, I readily admit that I am more an operatic tenor than a constitutional lawyer (and I can’t sing); and as such, I am not sure if simple legislation (in lieu of a constitutional amendment) would be powerful enough to accomplish such a task; but after witnessing this administration wield this separation of powers ambiguity as a machete in its maneuvers past Congressional oversight, I am steadfastly convinced that it is a necessity for proper governance.
Furthermore, in the face of a probable larger Democratic Congressional majority, and a Republican minority shortsightedly looking to handicap the power of a Democratic administration; I think it would pass. The contrast in their view on ‘Congressional obstructionism’ from the Clinton administration to today proves them nothing if not outright hypocrites.
The variety of policy-based calamities facing the incoming President may be as great as at any time in history; and as such, I understand how many may lose sight of this issue amongst the chaff. However, if there is one thing that must be learned from the past six years, it is that all of the best intended entitlement programs in the world mean nothing if there is an executive unwilling to administer them properly, and a Congress unable to enforce them short of impeachment.
We have a hell of a shot in November, but even with a victory, we will not be in power forever. We can not allow the current environment to persist, awaiting another strident charlatan to come in and pervert our system all over again.