Presidential Overreaching
Feb. 25th, 2006 06:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
saavedra77Surprising signs that U.S. liberals and conservatives may agree about the limits of presidential power:
Conservative pundit George Will argues that the Administration's assertion of broad, unchecked presidential power over foreign affairs "is refuted by the Constitution's plain language" about Congress' authority in this sphere. Nor is Will impressed by the Administration's claim to derive authority from "unexpressed congressional intent" between the lines of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force; as Will drily observes, this sounds particularly opportunistic coming from White House that "famously oppposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes."
Speaking as an unabashed liberal with strong feelings about the dangers of an unchecked executive, I couldn't have said it better myself.
And Will is far from the only conservative critic of Bush's overreaching: former Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, veteran conservative organizer Paul Weyrich, and even Grover "Starve-the-Beast" Norquist have recently sounded warnings about the long-term consequences of this Administration's efforts to broaden executive power.
Given the divisiveness of the past few years, I find myself amazed that people on the left and right--at least, some of them--can still derive the same meaning from "the Constitution's plain language"--despite the Administration's dogged attempts to obfuscate the issue.
Conservative pundit George Will argues that the Administration's assertion of broad, unchecked presidential power over foreign affairs "is refuted by the Constitution's plain language" about Congress' authority in this sphere. Nor is Will impressed by the Administration's claim to derive authority from "unexpressed congressional intent" between the lines of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force; as Will drily observes, this sounds particularly opportunistic coming from White House that "famously oppposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes."
Speaking as an unabashed liberal with strong feelings about the dangers of an unchecked executive, I couldn't have said it better myself.
And Will is far from the only conservative critic of Bush's overreaching: former Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, veteran conservative organizer Paul Weyrich, and even Grover "Starve-the-Beast" Norquist have recently sounded warnings about the long-term consequences of this Administration's efforts to broaden executive power.
Given the divisiveness of the past few years, I find myself amazed that people on the left and right--at least, some of them--can still derive the same meaning from "the Constitution's plain language"--despite the Administration's dogged attempts to obfuscate the issue.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-26 03:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-26 03:49 am (UTC)However, the conservative Bush critics cited above include important cultural conservatives, as well. Paul Weyrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich) is considered one of the founders of the New Right, and is broadly conservative on economic and cultural issues: for example, Weyrich helped Jerry Falwell found the Moral Majority and is an enthusiastic advocate of the so-called "culture war."
Bob Barr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr)'s political energies have been directed toward fighting illegal drugs, protecting the right to bear arms, and promoting "family values"; he was a major player in the Clinton impeachment proceedings. His support for sunset provisions in the Patriot Act and his more recent criticism of Bush's overreaching seem to suggest a broader libertarian streak, consonant with his support for gun rights. (His "family values" stand isn't exacly libertarian, but I don't think that this disconnect is altogether uncommon among more conservative libertarians.)
And while Grover Norquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist) is known primarily a pro-business, antitax crusader, his argument against Bush's expansion of government powers is one that should make an impression on any conservative: He doesn't want to see those powers someday inherited by a liberal president. (In the interview I heard, he actually invoked the terrifying spectre of a "President Hillary Clinton" ... I couldn't decide whether he seriously feared such an outcome, or was just scaremongering the "base" ...)