Cross-Posted at Democrashield
Over the past six years, we’ve seen an unprecedented expansion in the power of the Executive branch. From indefinite detention to the suspension of habeas corpus, the warrantless wiretapping program, the FISA bill, the USA PATRIOT act and everything in bewteen.
What does this all mean? Follow me after the jump...
We’ve seen new rhetoric used by conservatives to limit the power of Congress—demanding an up or down vote on all Presidential appointees, demanding that Presidential appointees be confirmed by default, allowing the President to bypass the Senate and make recess appointments—even in the case ofcrucial positions—etc.
Right now, we have one of the most powerful Executive Branches in our nation’s history. Conservatives have worked long and hard to make this President as powerful as possible. They’ve tried to elevate the Presidency above investigation and scrutiny, resistant to the Constitutional checks and balances designed to constrain it’s power.
But, conservatives may be in for an unpleasant surprise in the near future.
In college, my favorite professor was a conservative, a fourteen-year veteran of the Air Force and a big George W. Bush supporter; he taught my favorite course in college, which was on military force and foreign policy.
Despite the fact that he was a pro-Bush conservative, he was extremely wary of all the new powers being given to–and taken by–the President. This puzzled some of the more conservative students in the class, who asked him why he felt that way.
His response? You could trust George W. Bush with extraordinary amounts of power–he certainly did–but that didn’t matter. What mattered was, will you be able to trust the next President, and the President after that, with the same powers? Because once you give more power to the executive branch, it’s notoriously hard to take away–you’ve set a precedent.
And he was absolutely right. I don’t think many conservatives understand exactly what they’re doing—they’re not giving power to George W. Bush, they’re giving power to the Presidency itself. So if we wake up on January 20th, 2009 to see the inauguration of President Hillary Clinton, she will have access to all the power, all the privilege, all the authority that George W. Bush has right now.
So, Republicans, next time you try to prop up your failing Presidency by throwing in a little more Executive power, ask yourself this question—would I trust Hillary with this? Or Barack? Or John Edwards?
Because when George W. Bush leaves the Oval Office in January of 2009, he’s also going to leave all of those Executive privileges behind, right there on that desk for the next Presdient to pick up and use.
The lesson? No party remains in power forever–there is no such thing as a permanent majority; every party rises and falls. The Republicans made a crucial miscalculation, a critical mistake in hubris, one that may have extraordinary implications for them in the future. They may find themselves with an extremely powerful Democratic President, supported by a similarly-powerful Democratic Congress.
Always check the power of the majority and protect the rights of the minority, because– over a long enough period of time–you’ll find your party experiencing both roles. Power is fleeting–best to plan for the future, and plan for the worst.
Just look at the filibuster. I bet the Republicans are glad they kept it.