Favorite

3 questions for McCain, Obama 

CNN's political website on Sept. 24 listed 20 major issues in the 2008 presidential campaign: abortion, Afghanistan, Cuba, economic stimulus, education, energy, environment, free trade, guns, health care, homeland security, housing, immigration, Iran, Iraq, Israel, lesbian-gay issues, Social Security, stem-cell research, and taxes.

But someone in the press and media, including in the much-heralded TV “debates,” should ask McCain and Obama three questions on the vital issue of executive powers.

1. As president, will you renew the Bush administration's coercive practice of having the Justice Department issue secret legal opinions affecting presidential policy?

John Yoo in Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, which decides the legality of proposed presidential actions, secretly wrote and provided legal opinions — binding throughout the executive branch — allowing Bush to aggressively move against anyone the White House deemed connected to terrorism. Two of Yoo's major opinions involved (a) the terrorist surveillance program, and (b) approving extreme methods of torture, including waterboarding.

Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal henchman David Addington controlled this Legal Counsel process, according to Jack Goldsmith, a Republican lawyer who later replaced Yoo. Goldsmith challenged both the secretive methods and what he determined were Yoo's  “flawed” opinions.

2. Will you, as president, continue the expanding administration activity of filing signing statements challenging Congress when giving your signature to new laws?

A signing statement — a legal order the president enters into the Federal Register when signing a bill — asserts how the administration will implement the new law, or not.  With the signing statement, the president basically challenges Congress' authority in passing the law. This challenge, practically speaking, indicates the executive branch will be less than diligent in following the will of Congress, even ignoring the law.

According to Charlie Savage — a Boston Globe reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his investigations of the Bush presidency, including his signing statements — presidents historically have used such statements, but rarely. The activity expanded under Ronald Reagan, swelled under Bill Clinton, then exploded under the current President Bush. Our 42 presidents from Washington through Clinton had challenged 600 laws. Bush alone, through the summer of 2007, had attacked over 1,100.

The American Bar Association in 2007 publicly urged Congress to adopt legislation creating judicial-review procedures for “presidential signing statements that claim authority or indicate intent to disregard or decline to enforce the law being signed.” The ABA called signing statements “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has introduced legislation to quell the presidential authority of signing statements. If it were to pass, Congress would logically need to override a Bush presidential veto for it to become law.

The Washington Post reported in February that McCain said, if elected, he won't use signing statements. Obama said there may be circumstances that necessitate the statements. But candidates, and presidents, have been known to change their minds. So it would be good to hear their official views as we close in on Election Day.

3. As president, would you continue the Bush effort of masking the anti-terrorist effort as a “war” — the administration's attempt to indefinitely extend executive power as commander-in-chief?

John C. Danforth — a former Republican U.S. senator from Missouri and ambassador to the U.N. under Bush from 2004 to 2005 — recently asked in The New York Times, “Is it sensible to speak of a ‘war' on terror, or is this a struggle that should be principally handled by law enforcement?”

Statements coming from the White House constantly refer to the “war” on terror, a Bush effort at absolute power. His presidential history shows that, as long as he can cite a state of war allowing him to act as commander-in-chief, he can promote the “unitary executive theory.” This legal theory argues that, as commander-in-chief, he is not bound by Congress or by law, essentially meaning he's not even answerable to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If that's not an effort at absolute power, then what is?

 

Roger Armbrust is editor-in-chief of the new "Our National Conversation" book series published by Parkhurst Brothers Inc. Publishers of Little Rock.

Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Roger Armbrust

Readers also liked…

  • Banned in 2018

    Here's some arcana reeking of 2017 that I'm banning from consideration, attention, even out-loud mention in 2018. I'm unfriending all this 2017-reminding shit. It's dead to me in 2018.
    • Jan 11, 2018
  • A new statue to represent Arkansas in D.C.

    Like all states, Arkansas has two statues selected by the legislature to represent our state in the U.S. Capitol. Uriah Rose, a successful and innovative lawyer, and James P. Clarke, a former governor and U.S. senator, have represented Arkansas in National Statuary Hall for approximately 100 years.
    • Oct 11, 2018

Latest in Guest Writer

  • A new statue to represent Arkansas in D.C.

    Like all states, Arkansas has two statues selected by the legislature to represent our state in the U.S. Capitol. Uriah Rose, a successful and innovative lawyer, and James P. Clarke, a former governor and U.S. senator, have represented Arkansas in National Statuary Hall for approximately 100 years.
    • Oct 11, 2018
  • Symbols matter

    I was 15 years old when I stepped into the halls of Little Rock Central High School in 1998. Attending that historic school as a young black man was a surreal experience that both informed my identity and illuminated regrettable aspects and actions in our nation's history and culture.
    • Oct 11, 2018
  • Stand up for abortion rights

    Earlier this year, I faced one of the hardest moments in my medical career. It had nothing to do with a challenging treatment or an unfamiliar case. In fact, it had nothing to do with my profession — and everything to do with politics.
    • Oct 4, 2018
  • More »

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: The mob

    • Investigator, I wouldn't be too hard on poor Kate. She isn't much more than your…

    • on October 19, 2018
  • Re: Elizabeth Warren, still a contender

    • Perhaps, but she sure does cling to a lie with the same shameless derangement, though…

    • on October 19, 2018
  • Re: Elizabeth Warren, still a contender

    • Oh, Stevi"e", what BS. Just for one example, Warren has certainly demonstrated that her vocabulary…

    • on October 19, 2018
 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation