29/07: A Few Additional Comments on the ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Still Thinking Out Loud:
1. Very Funny (as in this actually makes me chuckle). I spoke of the seeming fascination with King James II in the Task Force Report. Coincidentally, the ABA complainants choose to refer to the two Bush administrations as Bush I and Bush II.
2. I advocate taking a closer look at all this. The President's use of signing statements strikes me as a radical departure from the past. Changes of that magnitude merit mature discussion and a healthy dose of skepticism. Moreover, in a previous essay, "Power and Liberty," I expressed my opinion that the jealous "departments" and the interest of extra-governmental entities play essential roles in protecting liberty. Let the Judiciary Committee and a hostile ABA kick this around a bit.
Power is the enemy of liberty.
3. The framers purportedly designed the office of the presidency with two thoughts in mind: 1) George Washington was going to be president (and you could trust him to be a good steward of executive power); and 2) George Washington would not be president forever (and there would be a president someday who was not a trustworthy steward of executive power).
Patrick Henry warned that a president would come along one day, who would "make that bold push for the throne."
In this respect the ABA is right (allow me to paraphrase): this is not a question that should be approached from the perspective of our man sitting in the oval office. We should, in fact, close our eyes and imagine Hillary Clinton in the oval office. Then ask ourselves: is this a process we want to establish as precedent?
4. One last consideration/counter-point: the ABA report never seems to consider the post-9/11-ism of all this. Much of the administration's argument assumes that these are war powers. That really is a pivotal question. Are we at war? How long can a president assume war powers without a Congressional declaration of war?
While power is the enemy of liberty, too much liberty can be also the enemy of liberty. Or, as United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson cautioned, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Note: Part of this appeared in the discussion in the "comments section" following the first post.
1. Very Funny (as in this actually makes me chuckle). I spoke of the seeming fascination with King James II in the Task Force Report. Coincidentally, the ABA complainants choose to refer to the two Bush administrations as Bush I and Bush II.
2. I advocate taking a closer look at all this. The President's use of signing statements strikes me as a radical departure from the past. Changes of that magnitude merit mature discussion and a healthy dose of skepticism. Moreover, in a previous essay, "Power and Liberty," I expressed my opinion that the jealous "departments" and the interest of extra-governmental entities play essential roles in protecting liberty. Let the Judiciary Committee and a hostile ABA kick this around a bit.
Power is the enemy of liberty.
3. The framers purportedly designed the office of the presidency with two thoughts in mind: 1) George Washington was going to be president (and you could trust him to be a good steward of executive power); and 2) George Washington would not be president forever (and there would be a president someday who was not a trustworthy steward of executive power).
Patrick Henry warned that a president would come along one day, who would "make that bold push for the throne."
In this respect the ABA is right (allow me to paraphrase): this is not a question that should be approached from the perspective of our man sitting in the oval office. We should, in fact, close our eyes and imagine Hillary Clinton in the oval office. Then ask ourselves: is this a process we want to establish as precedent?
4. One last consideration/counter-point: the ABA report never seems to consider the post-9/11-ism of all this. Much of the administration's argument assumes that these are war powers. That really is a pivotal question. Are we at war? How long can a president assume war powers without a Congressional declaration of war?
While power is the enemy of liberty, too much liberty can be also the enemy of liberty. Or, as United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson cautioned, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Note: Part of this appeared in the discussion in the "comments section" following the first post.
Tocqueville wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.c...