About
A progressive online community for the Granite State. More...
Getting Started
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)

ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS


Policy Straw Poll: Executive Power/Executive Overreach

by: Mike Caulfield

Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 22:14:45 PM EDT


Most of the campaigns are a little overwhlemed right now, if you want to know why, look under our events in the left column and note the full court press they are doing on New Hampshire this weekend.

Still, we have to start somewhere, so here is what we have right now, and we'll post the others as they come in.

You know the drill. Two hundred words. Starts with "I am the only candidate who". Contains a substantive policy point.

So here we go:
From Obama:

I am the only candidate with the understanding of the Constitution that comes with teaching, practicing, and writing about constitutional law.  This Administration puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.  Bush's advisors interpret Article II of the Constitution as granting boundless authority.  This is not how our Constitution is designed.  As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, adhere to the Geneva Conventions, and restore the centuries-old protection of habeas corpus.  Our Constitution and Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with terrorists.  We can provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools needed to track and take out terrorists without undermining our freedoms.  That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens.  No more tracking citizens for protesting a misguided war.  No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.  That is not who we are. And it is not needed to protect the country.  The FISA court works.  The separation of powers works.  Our Constitution works. We will again show the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

From Dodd:

"I am the only candidate that has promised to restore the Constitution from the damage inflicted on it by six years of the Bush Administration during my first day in the Oval Office.

"This Administration has misused its executive power since its first days in office -- from Cheney's Energy Task Force to their efforts to undermine the Constitution through abuses like warrantless wiretaps and degradation of habeas corpus.  As a result our standing in the world and our moral authority is in tatters ? and that has made us less secure as a nation. That is why I introduced the Restoring the Constitution Act that would restore Habeas Corpus protections to detainees, bar information acquired through torture from being introduced as evidence in trials, and limit presidential authority to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. 

"As President, I will fulfill my oath of office and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

From Hillary:

As President, Hillary Clinton would rein in use of signing statements so Presidents can't pick and choose which portions of a bill to enforce.  She has criticized, for example, President Bush for signing the overall reform package of FEMA into law while saying that he wasn't necessarily going to follow one of its provisions ?- one requiring proper qualifications for the director of FEMA.  When Hillary is President, the entrance to the White House will no longer be a revolving door for just the well-connected -- but a door of opportunity for the well-qualified.  Hillary would also permanently ban all Cabinet officials from lobbying her Administration once they?ve left office. She would extend the whistleblower shield to all government employees and contractors to ensure normal access to jury trials in federal court to defend themselves when they speak out in the public interest. She will end the abuse of no-bid contracts and reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment to restore the role of evidence and facts, not partisanship and ideology, in decision making.  For more about how Senator Clinton will clean up the White House, please visit http://www.hillarycl....

Update, Thursday PM

From Biden:

I am the only candidate who has introduced legislation to ban torture, restore habeas corpus and prohibit extraordinary rendition.  No President is above the law - but this Administration has consistently acted as if the constitution was just a guideline instead of our highest law.  In the aftermath of September 11th, the world looked to us to form a new coalition to face the threat of international terrorism and defend the very values the terrorists had attacked. Regrettably, the President abandoned our uncompromising commitment to the rule of law and individual rights in the belief that it was the only way to secure the United States against the threat of terrorism.  By his acceptance of what amounts to torture, the practice of extraordinary rendition, the operation of secret prisons, the unwarranted surveillance of Americans and the revocation of habeas corpus, President Bush has made us less safe at home and weaker abroad. I would do three things to return to our national values, and to restore the rule of law and civil liberties: (1) restore habeas corpus by ensuring that anyone in American custody has the ability to argue before a court of law that his detention was erroneous or illegal; (2) prohibit torture and close down secret CIA prisons in other countries where detainees are held incommunicado and cruelly mistreated; and (3) close down Guantanamo Bay, a facility that symbolizes the Administration's lack of respect for basic human rights and civil liberties.
Mike Caulfield :: Policy Straw Poll: Executive Power/Executive Overreach
We'll be taking advantage of the monster tours around the state this weekend, tune back in for coverage.
Poll
Whose answer was most compelling?
Biden's
Richardson's
Hillary's
Kucinich's
Gravel's
Obama's
Dodd's
Edwards's

Results

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Three-way tie (0.00 / 0)
All strong on specifics; the Cabinet lobbying ban in Clinton's seems a little silly, but I'm glad she mentioned signing statements.



Compelling (0.00 / 0)
I voted for Obama's (it was a tough choice between his and Dodd's) but I found Hillary Clinton's the most compelling in that it made not inclined to trust her.  At all.

What about wiretapping?  What about the unitary executive theory?  She's throwing out all these nice positons on FEMA and OTA but where is she on THE most important issue:  what will happen to the expanded power of the executive if Hillary Clinton becomes President?

The Bush Administration has created the greatest danger for America, not by creating turmoil in Iraq - our nation will survive the blowback from this and other foreign policy blunders - but in consolidating an unprecedented amount of power in the executive branch, left to be inherited by whoever wins the race for the prize in '08.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship


I agree, though maybe not as fired up abbout it as you. (0.00 / 0)
I found the specifics admirable, but strangely trivial.

I know sometimes this format forces peop;e to focus on small differences, but pf course Hillary doesn't follow the format anyway. And even if she did, 200 words is more than enough to get to some of that stuff. Signing statements seems like weak tea.

Trust? Not sure that's it -- I don't think that it makes me not trust her. I think it makes me wonder where she's been the last 6 years. Dodd and Obama both get this -- we have to roll back the powers to those in the constitution -- we created a weak executive for all the reasons we've seen over the past 6 years.



[ Parent ]
Obama's strongest statement yet (4.00 / 2)
I generally think of this issue as Dodd's -- he's really been out front here -- but I think Obama's reponse here is one of the best i've seen from him. If I could see more of that Obama, a guy who can get down to brass tacks while keeping the big picture, if i could see that guy, i'd pick on him less.



Professor Obama (0.00 / 0)
It is likely, that one of Obama's strongest skills is his ability to measure Constitutional matters. As our entire democracy is founded and executed upon the principles and ideals layed down on a few bits of parchment, we should definitely consider who can handily dicipher the code of our founders.

Having, merely, a journeyman's knowledge of our Constitution may prove tragic. The Court has been stacked, so a wise Executive needs to hold the rudder of our ship of state. Now, more than ever!

Note. Rep. Patrick Murphy(D-Pa) taught Constitutional Law at West Point prior to his tours in Iraq. His endorsement is cherished for many reasons, this being one.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.


[ Parent ]
Why is it that Senator Clinton can't speak (0.00 / 0)
for herself?  Is that what we have to look forward to?  Spokespersons making policy that might have to be revised?

The only problem I have with Obama's answer is the specification that "citizens" are going to be treated differently than non-citizens.  The Constitutional provisions reference persons and people.  While this raises the knotty issue about how our agents of government are supposed to behave regardless of where they are, that, IMHO, is exactly what it means.  No situational ethics in the Constitution.  But then, the Constitution is a "limiting" document.  It permits certain activities.  The criminal code prohibits certain activities by individuals.


Citizen vs. Resident (4.00 / 1)
Up front, I ain't no scholar.

I feel that Obama's response was sticking with the Constitutional vernacular. In no way did I sense a differentiation between categories of people here in America.

That is easy for me to say, because I trust Obama not to segregate US residents, especially when applying the power of the Executive.

My "gut" on this is based, in part, on a nineteen year marriage to a Brazilian Resident Alien. (She's quite a catch)

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.


[ Parent ]
It's a big topic (0.00 / 0)
And reining in executive overreach will take strong Congressional action too -- something we have not yet seen.

There are some legitimate cases of executive privilege, so I don't know what a convincing statement on its use would be, but I want the next President to use it far less frequently.

I reluctantly favor a Constitutional amendment eliminating the President's pardon power. It is too frequently used to obstruct justice, and too seldom needed to accomplish good and important public purposes.

I agree that the Clinton statement seemed to focus on relatively trivial matters -- but I think that is because the campaign stuck to those things the President can do independently, without going to Congress.


I'm going to hold off on voting (0.00 / 0)
until some of the others roll in.

I'm pretty sure Joe Biden can also make that Constitutional Law Professor claim.

Obama's statement is the best out of the three presently there, though I think Dodd is the most serious about the issue. It strikes me that this is a big part of the reason why he's running, but he didn't present that as well as he could have  here.

I don't think Clinton understood the topic, or the response at least wasn't what I was looking for. Cronyism and corruption aren't my biggest concerns when it comes to executive power/executive overreach.


Joe Biden Teaches Constitutional Law (0.00 / 0)
at Widener University School of Law.

[ Parent ]
Practice what you "teach" (0.00 / 0)
I commend Senator Biden for his achievments as a scholar.

For me, Obama's time applying Constitutional Law in his civil rights practice gives him an edge.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.


[ Parent ]
Good answer from Biden (0.00 / 0)
Closing Gitmo, like Obama.

I think the comments above underplay signing statements. What Bush essentially did, roughly 750 times according to Charlie Savage at the Globe, is say he can ignore laws if he wants. What is more unconstitutional than that?



Hillary specifically highlighted that n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
"Weak tea," according to Caulfield. I'm surprised none od th other candidates mentioned them.



[ Parent ]
Weak tea, yes. (0.00 / 0)
Because whether those are binding at all has not been established. He hasn't gained a single power because of the statements, at least not yet.

Meanwhile he HAS suspended multiple civil liberties, and walked all over the Constitution. People are in prison without charges, people are being tortured, etc. Your phone calls are being tapped and your emails have been logged.

The signing statements is a grand diversion. I'm glad CSPs bill will lay the question to rest so they can be challenged, then ignored.

The Unitary Executive idea that underlies those statements is perhaps more damning. Perhaps the more interesting thing would be for these candidates to make rejection of the unitary executive idea a new litmus test for judges.



[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
They're not legally binding at all, there is no Constitutional precedent for them. However, since Bush has used them so aggressively, his defenders are trying to make them valid. So a no-brainer question enters the public arena, and the republic withers a little bit.

If we still had a GOP Congress, CSP's bill would NOT pass.

I don't mean to downplay the other stuff you mentioned, all true and all worrisome, but signing statements are one of the most insidious Bush tools. Yes, they've been around for a while, but as far as I know they've never been used to undercut laws.



[ Parent ]
I'm giving Biden my vote on this (0.00 / 0)
It's an odd flip -- Obama used the trademark Biden "personal narrative" here, and Biden stuck to policy.

For me it was a close call. All the answers were good; from different perspectives (e.g., Who focused on the most heinous offenses? Who spoke broadly enough to capture all the big issues? Who was specific?) I could award top answers to any of them.

And if it were not just this response, but the issue in general, Dodd gets my vote. He has done more to push it to the front burner than any of the others.


Powered by: SoapBlox