For the past 5 years, we have watched BushCo push the boundries on acceptable acts of the President of the United States. Since 9/11/01, the acts have become more outrageous, under the guise of national security. Today the United States is less democratic than it was 5 years ago and the President has asserted himself as the superior branch of government. The Executive no longer accepts being subject to the checks and balances of the Legislative or Judicial branches of our constitutional government.
The Court of our Imperial President is now putting out feelers to weigh how the public will react when Bush refuses to leave office after his second term.
The push to repeal the 22nd Amendment- below the fold:
After sitting on its story for a year, the New York Times finally broke the story of BushCo's illegal wiretaps here in the US. How did W respond? First he said he would continue the spying, regardless of the law or public outcry. Then the Department of Justice announced an investigation to find out who revealed the illegal spying.
On January 4th, The Boston Globe revealed that King Bush is above the confines of federal law.
When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
Today the Globe followed up with reaction from the Legislative branch. The article reveals that Bush had asked for the power to be above the law, but Congress specifically refused.
John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.
''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators said. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."
How does the White House answer this rejection?
A senior administration official later confirmed that the president believes the Constitution gives him the power to authorize interrogation techniques that go beyond the law to protect national security.
Today, the next step is revealed. The NY Times op-ed page includes a guest column calling for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment. The law that limits the President to 2 terms.
The argument is to twist logic by stating that the term limit hurts the American people because the President does not have enough power, AND conversely, that the limit robs the voters of their power to hold him accountable.
A second-term president will, in effect, automatically be fired within four years. Inevitably his influence over Congress, and even his authority over the sprawling executive branch, weaken. His party leadership frays as presidential hopefuls carve out their own constituencies for the next election. Whether the president is trying to tamp down scandal or push legislation, he loses his ability to set the agenda.
But whether or not a president has a diminished second term, the amendment barring a third term presents the broader and more serious question of his accountability to the people.
While political commentators analyze every twist in White House politics, while citizens follow dramatic stories of leaks, investigations and indictments, the one person who does not have to care is George W. Bush. In a sense, he has transcended the risks and rewards of American politics. He will not run again for office. The voters will not be able to thank him - or dump him.
But no need to worry dear-citizen. Unbelievably, the authors assert that remaining in office will make the President less powerful, and that McCain-Fiengold removes the influence of money from Presidential politics:
Some defenders of the 22nd Amendment might argue that an incumbent second-term president would have an even more formidable and undeserved advantage in recognition, experience and the prestige of his office today than in the 1940's. But the power of incumbency may actually decrease with time. After his landslide victory for a second term in 1936, Roosevelt saw his popular vote drop in 1940 and even more in 1944.
And what about an unfair head start in campaign fund-raising? Presidential incumbents already have a significant advantage, but not necessarily an overwhelming one, especially with campaign finance reform. In a democratic republic, only the Constitution should trump the will of the majority, not the economic vicissitudes of the campaign trail.
Finally, all the focus-group-tested, Rove-approved phrases:
Hasn't the time come for Congress and the voters to revoke an authoritarian, barely considered amendment? Republicans, who revere "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution and who applaud the rise of the conservative movement, should welcome the possibility of a three- or four-term Republican president, thus avoiding "second termitis."
And Democrats, as they contemplate the century that lies ahead, can hope that in another world crisis, this misbegotten amendment will not be there to bar a future Franklin Roosevelt from offering the kind of leadership that he provided in the 1940's.
So the law is authoritarian. Original intent compels an imperial presidency. Repubs and Dems will both be rewarded with effective multi-term leaders. Ahhh. Wheeeee. Nice. Thank you Big Brother for protecting us all. Forever.