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.
