百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand ]
郭国汀律师专栏
·律師的文學功底
·郭國汀:中國涉外案件沒有一起獲得執行
·南郭:堂堂正正做個真正的中國人!
·郭国汀:愿王洪民先生在天之灵安息.
·南郭:令郭國汀律師老淚縱橫的真情
·郭国汀:民族败类!你是否中国人?
·郭國汀:令我熱淚橫流的小詩
·郭国汀:专制流氓暴政本质的再暴露
·郭國汀:強烈譴責中共惡意迫害自由戰士楊天水 許萬平
·今天我絕食——英雄多多益善!
·一个中国人权律师的真实故事
·郭国汀:全球接力绝食抗暴运动的伟大意义
·郭国汀:闻律师英雄高智晟再遇车祸有感
·只有思想言论信仰结社出版新闻舆论的真正自由能够救中国!
· 南郭:自由万岁!新年好!
·志当存高远-我的理想与追求
·我的知识结构与思想
·人生 道德 灵魂/南郭
·男子汉的眼泪/郭国汀
·相信生命—郭國汀律師印象
·南郭点评
·Racism is the biggest enemy of Justice and equality
·The Essence Distinguish Between Marx and Lenin on the Dictatorship of
·Race Politic as the Enemy of Justice and Equality
·The Great Leap Famine: Natural Disaster or Political disaster or Murde
·Homosexuality: a legal or moral problem?
·1958-1962年中国历史上最具毁灭性的大灾难
·马恩列无产阶级专政研究手稿/郭国汀
·郭国汀:穷大律师与亿万富翁
·政治体制改革的实质与根本要件/郭国汀編译手稿
·台湾自由宪政民主之路/郭国汀编译
·Terrorism and state terrorism studying
·The Truth of Chinese Economic development studying by Thomas Guoting G
·Comparing Analysis of Marx and Lenin’s Theory on the Dictatorship of
·China overtake the USA becoming an economic superpower??? by Thomas G
·人性论:人性本恶或人性本善? 郭国汀
·《诗经》英译(精选)/郭国汀編译
·Running build up a sound man
·An top important massage sent by the Holy Spirit
·My special experience help me build up my faith to the God
·I saw five ghosts when I was eighteen
·My adventure in this wonderful world
·My cross road as the first Chinese human rights lawyers who has lost h
·Does Xi in nature(evil) is same as Hu?
·Art, painting, and Civilization by Thomas G Guo
·A great teacher on our time ?
·What kind of characteristic I have ?
·郭国汀律师业绩简介
·Guo's fighting for freedom and Justice will certify that "Freedom is n
·What Human rights lawyer Thomas G Guo had done and why he received suc
·中共在抗战期通日敌打国军卖国史实考证/郭国汀
·I always tears stopless without crying, am I still a genuine man???
·My sixty year struggle for freedom and justice
·My appreciation to all professors in the Uvic and friends in the world
·Is Thomas Guoting Guo really a great teacher on our time ?
·My sixty years struggle for freedom and justice II
·孙文和蒋介石与苏俄党国体制的原则性区别
·Probably the Last idealist of Chinese lawyer?
·What looks like Mr. Thomas G Guo in my eyes
·a virtues, righteous, wisdom, and courage,and distinguished lawyer
·郭国汀律师:法轮圣徒瞿延来为何令南郭敬重?
·专访郭国汀律师(下) :回首不言悔
·郭国汀律师:何谓真正的中国人权律师?
·My sixty years struggle for freedom and justice III
·思想、言论、出版、舆论、新闻的真正自由
·民族败类!你是否中国人?
·思想言论自由的理由
·思想言论出版新闻自由的价值
·律师的文学功底
·最高法院的院长们为何对郭国汀极为反感?
·反了你! 竟敢不尊敬我大法官!
·Critical analysis on the Chinese Communist Party’s Regime by Thomas
·马克思研究手稿/郭国汀
·大师大哲论勇气 /郭国汀译
·任何欲与郭律师公开辩论者敬请公示真名实姓
·天才的古代中国/郭国汀編译手稿
·The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution studying by Thomas Guoting G
·关于内因与外因关系的争论
·Canadian Indigenous people’s right of self-determination and sovereig
·世界思想大哲论暴政----反抗专制暴政是天赋人权
·My forty years struggle for freedom and justice IV
·Human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang
·A holy man or a moral man?
·He is a genuine hero and the hope of China!
·The first Chinese human rights lawyer was killed by the CCP regime
·you are not only a upright man, but also a heroic brave fighter!
·I will never give up my life duty and mission!
·Injustice as the root of terrorism: Social political and economic fact
·Why we much anti-communist party of China regime?
·My Forty years struggle for Freedom and Justice V
·Why we must anti-communist party of China regime?
·Does Judicial Activism damaged the Democracy in Canada?
·谁是中国首任民选总统?
·我的自由真实的心声
·人权律师是伟大的律师也是政治家的摇蓝
·胡捣鼓的人渣or令人敬佩的民主战士?
·郭国汀:男子汉的眼泪
·法律人的冷漠与自私是人权律师惨遭迫害的根源之一
·敬请习近平当局立即停止黑客攻击天易网,停止删改吾之政论!
·19世纪西方堀起超越东方(中华文明)的基础
·郭律师致全体中国民运同道朋友们的公开信
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand

   An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand
   
   by Ivan Eland Jan 10, 2006 note by thomasgguo
   
   

   After revelations about President Bush ordering surveillance of Americans without obtaining warrants, the boundaries of executive power will undoubtedly be one of the principal issues raised at the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. The conservative Alito has publicly endorsed the theory of the unitary executive, which takes a broad view of presidential authority. Alito’s liberal critics say his record has been too obsequious(to eager to obey or serve; having too little self-respect) to expanded executive power.
   
   
   
   The position of these two camps seems peculiar. Many of today’s conservatives, such as Alito, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington, believe that the presidency is not muscular enough. In fact, the vice president, contrary to most scholarship on the issue, feels that, in recent decades, the executive branch has been emasculated(to take away all strength ;to take away the power of becoming a father from). Yet conservatives also tout their custodianship of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. The nation’s founders would turn over in their graves if they were to learn of the modern imperial presidency.
   
   
   
   The U.S. Constitution was written after a war of independence from what the colonists believed was a despotic(a person who has all the power of government and uses it unjustly and cruelly; tyrant) king. The document was designed to strictly limit federal power, vis-à-vis the powers of the states and the people. Within the constricted federal realm, the framers intended to make the decentralized Congress the dominant branch and gave that body many more enumerated powers than the president or the judiciary. It is no coincidence that the article of the Constitution setting forth the powers of the legislative branch is listed first and is by far longer than Article II, which lists the responsibilities of the executive branch, and Article III, which covers the judiciary.
   
   
   
   In particular, the founders feared the power of a potent executive to impose wars upon the American people in which they would bear the brunt (the main or most damaging part of an attack)of the costs in blood and treasure—much as the autocratic European monarchs of the day inflicted such costs on their subjects. Thus, the framers, contrary to conventional wisdom, gave most of the war powers to Congress. The legislature has the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, regulate the land and naval forces, make the rules for captures on land and water, and provide for organizing, arming, disciplining, and calling forth the militia in times of insurrection and invasion. In contrast, the president has only the power of commander-in-chief of the army, navy, and militia when called into service by the federal government.
   
   
   
   It is this last power that modern presidents, especially the current incumbent, have attempted to stretch from its narrow origins into the very nightmare the framers wanted to avoid—a single official with unchecked war powers. President Bush has justified unconstitutional acts in the “war on terror” by expanding the power of the commander-in-chief beyond the founders’ intention. He has used that power to justify torture, the surveillance of Americans without a warrant, and the effective suspension of habeas corpus by indefinite detention of “enemy combatants”—including some Americans—without a trial or access to lawyers. Yet the founders intended only that the president command forces on the battlefield because it was difficult for the many members of the legislative branch to do so. Yes, gathering intelligence is part of that effort, but another part of the Constitution—that is, the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights—implicitly guarantees that people will be protected against searches without a warrant. For conservatives that love original intent, the Constitution says nothing about being suspended during wartime. Also, torturing prisoners in violation of the congressionally approved Geneva Conventions and indefinitely detaining them without a trial seem to run afoul of the constitutional provisions providing that Congress has the power to make rules concerning captures on land and water and implying that only Congress, rather than the executive, has the power to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion (this provision is in Article I and not Article II).
   
   
   
   Of course, there is currently no rebellion or invasion, so any suspension of habeas corpus—whether by the president or Congress—is likely to be unconstitutional. In fact, there is no war; the “war on terror” is not really a war at all. The post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against the attacks’ perpetrators and those that harbored them, which the president uses as an additional justification for his domestic snooping(to search, look into,or concern oneself with other peoples property or affairs without permission) did not even imply the approval of such surveillance, expanded executive power (in fact, members of Congress from both parties went on record specifically rejecting that interpretation), or a declaration of war.
   
   
   
   So even though the president and his administration constantly say, “we are at war,” technically we are not. The last official war the United States fought was World War II. After that, the Congress abdicated(to give up a right, claim, or responsibility; renounce) its responsibility to declare war. Since then, presidents have declared a unilateral right to send U.S. forces into harms way—the founders’ worst fear. For example, even though President Bill Clinton couldn’t get congressional approval to attack Serbia and Kosovo, he ordered the bombing anyway. Before Gulf War I, President George H. W. Bush claimed that he was asking for a congressional resolution of support, as opposed to a declaration of war, only as a courtesy—not because he was required to by the Constitution.
   
   
   
   Yet despite the recent bending of the rules, the Constitution and the debates at the constitutional convention were clear that a declaration of war is needed to go to war, unless an invasion prevents the Congress from meeting. Even then, Congress was expected to ratify an existing state of war as soon as it could. In the current “war on terror,” because Congress has not declared war, the existing congressional resolution should not be used to justify domestic surveillance or anything else. Also, with no official war, the president’s authority as commander-in-chief—interpreted narrowly by the founders—would be even more limited.
   
   
   
   Most of the extraordinary actions that President Bush has taken after 9/11 are unconstitutional. The imperial presidency—especially its expanded war powers—rests on constitutional quicksand(wet sand which sucks in anyone or anything that tries to cross it).
   
   
   
   Thomasgguo: openly criticize the policy of government or the president in USA is the right of citizen, while in China, anyone criticize the policy of the CCP or Hu jingtao, may be sent into jail or prison. This is the vital different between the democracy and dictatorship. Any truth should arguable openly and there is no evil under sunshine. One day, when Chinese people also enjoy the right of criticize, there is hope of China.

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场