You need to read the following editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
The writer, Adam Cohen, argues that Bush "is trying to expand 'his' powers beyond all legal justification" and that he is trying to expand his authority beyond what the the founders intended. The framers of the Constitution, Cohen argues, were careful "to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters." In Federalist #69 for example, Alexander Hamilton argued that that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.
The president argues that "Congress ought [not] be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.” He added magnanimously: “I’m certainly interested in their opinion.”
My questions for you are:
Is Bush overstepping his constitutional powers? Is he trying to resurrect the "imperial Presidency?" Does congress have a role to play in matters of war and peace? Bush suggests the role is limited to funding. Cohen suggests otherwise. What do you think?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
YES! President Bush has no legal right to suspend continuity of government for congress. He also cannot "grant himself new powers" though he claims in PDD 51 that he can. It is as absurd as Vice-President Cheney saying that he is outside of the executive branch and cannot be expected to follow the same "laws" that the president must follow. But of course this is the same Dick Cheney that said in a 1994 interview that invading Iraq, and subsequently Baghdad, would be a "quagmaire". The invaision, he said, would result in uncontrolable sectarian violence in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussian. Looking forward to your online class this fall.
Brian
Post a Comment