Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:25:00
Another reason to be mad at Bush - Hillary Clinton
Have I lost my mind? Mad at Bush because of Hillary? Am I crazy? Nope.
Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president — her “responsibility gene,” she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority.
...
Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers said, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief.
Bush has made more of an effort to consolidate executive power than any other President in our history, save maybe for Lincoln and even that is debatable. He has taken powers that do not belong to him, usurped the checks and balances of Congress at his whim and used signing statements so egregiously as to be damn near criminal.
I do not believe that he has used all the power he has gathered. In fact, a lot of what he is accused of is nonsense. The thing of it is, you don’t have to abuse your authority to be in the wrong to take it in the first place. The office of President is a permanent one - the occupant of that office is transient.
I do not want Hillary Clinton - or anyone else for that matter - having the power that George Bush has taken for the office. That has always been the point if trying to combat executive power grabs...it’s not necessarily what this executive might do, it’s what the next one might do. It’s a slippery slope...once we’re all used to _X_ amount of power in the Executive Branch, it’s easy to take a little more, and the next President takes a little more, and the one after that a little more, until one day our children’s children wake up to find their only recourse is to rise up under force of arms, or beg Britain - or by then, China - to invade the United States and overthrow the tyrant king.
Hat tip: Dan Riehl
Posted by JimK at 07:25 PM on February 17, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: News, Politics, The Federal Government
Tags:
Technorati: executive authority Bush Hillary Clinton
Comments:
#2 Posted by Rann Aridorn 
on 02/17 at 09:47 PM -
She’s just blowing smoke. She’s hoping for exactly what happened with you… that you’ll get mad at Bush. And yes, you probably should be mad at Bush.
But if you think she wouldn’t use every last bit of power he’s drawn to the office and try to grab for more, you’re crazy. Remember, this is the woman busily trying to tell the nation what kind of entertainment it is allowed to view, among other things.
#3 Posted by Drumwaster on 02/18 at 02:28 AM -
I have more of a problem with the Congress telling the President “you’re not allowed to have that power, because that power should belong to the Congress”.
Have none of these morons ever read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments?
The Constitution does not grant certain powers to the People, it grants those powers to the Government, with the balance reserved to the lower levels of government.
Where it should be.
“Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” {JFKennedy}
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
thouh i agree with most of what you wrote.
china will probably provide” peacekeepers for the federal forces during the forth coming civil war.