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
·文革教训原因考/郭国汀
·对物质的思考/郭国汀
·精神文明与物质文明/郭国汀
·内因与外因关系的沉思
·外因是决定事物运动变化发展的根本原因
·开放党禁与多党联合政治
·论质、量互变关系
·如何理解劳动?——有感于中国1956—1959年之“三大改造”
·人类与自然环境
·共产主义是违背自然规律的妄想
***(57)网友评价评论与批评郭国汀
·一代大师
·良好的名誉是人们在任何时代任何社会安身立命之本
·各界人士对郭国汀律师高度评价
·浦志强、张思之大律师评价郭国汀
·清水君(黄金秋):我要特别感谢郭国汀大律师
·上海美女评价郭国汀律师
·欧阳小戎忆郭国汀律师
·不要迫害中国的脊梁 ──郭国汀
·良心律师,人权大侠!
·为国为民 侠之大者——郭国汀
·被缚的普罗米修司----
·感谢郭国汀律师
·让英雄的血流在光天化日之下
·声援中国人权律师郭国汀、强烈反对中共利用司法机器釜底抽薪镇压维权运动征集签名书
·谁是当代中国最高贵的人?
·答浦志强对郭国汀的批评
·警惕:中共对郭国汀律师的迫害并没有中止
·从郭国汀案看中国法制的崩毁
·值得大学生与爱国愤青一读的戏剧
·大中学生及爱国愤青的娱乐读物
·刘路与郭国汀之间的友情
·刘路(李建强)共特真相大暴露
·为什么说李建强(刘路)是共特?
·欢迎李建强公开辩污论战
·我与刘晓波先生的恩怨
·我与英雄警官之间的友谊
·律师为英雄辩护的最佳策略
·敬请张耀杰先生公开向郭国汀大律师赔礼道歉的公开函
·郭国汀训斥张耀杰
·怒斥张耀杰----南郭系当之无愧的大律师!
·痛斥張耀傑----予汝真诚道欠的最后通谍!
·郭国汀痛斥假冒伪劣人格低下的[学者]張耀傑
***周游列国 漂泊四海
·我的哥本哈根之旅
·梦幻湖畔之春晖
·加国白雪公主之宫
·雪中加国风情
·圣诞日维多利亚雪宫
·我的总统跑道
·我的超五星级总统跑道之二
·迷人的维多利亚风光
·维多利亚人间仙境
·海上明珠维多利亚精景
·世上最美的往往是大自然
·郭国汀在渥太华和世外桃源
·郭国汀律师在温哥华
·冬吟白雪诗
·山青水秀地灵人杰
·与传统观念彻底决裂?!
·文明与传统
·轻松愉快的国庆节游行
·我的巴黎之旅
·浪际天涯孤独客
·郭国汀律师在纽伦堡
·余之法朗克福之行
·吾之法朗克福之游
·感受纽伦堡
·观光德国古城堡
·纽伦古城堡风光依旧
·感受如诗如画的世外桃源美景
·观光布鲁塞尔
·风景如画的莱茵河畔
·郭国汀律师出席布鲁塞尔第二届全球支持亚洲民主化大会留影
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福留莲忘返
***(58)郭国汀律师名案要案抗辩实录
***(一)郭国汀律师为清水君抗辩
·郭国汀我为什么为清水君辩护?
·律师郭国汀对黄金秋(清水君)颠覆国家政权案辩护大纲
·清水君网上组党案刑事上诉状
·江苏高院强行书面审判清水君上诉案
·黄金秋(清水君)颠覆国家政权上诉案辩护词纲要
·清水君案上诉辩护词附件
·清水君案江苏高院驳回上诉维持原判
·中共伪法官评黄金秋颠覆国家政权案
·郭国汀律师清水君颠覆国家政权案研究
·郭国汀归纳清水君思想论点主旨言论集
·郭国汀就黄金秋颠覆国家政权上诉案致江苏省高级法院院长函
·郭国汀致狱中清水君函
·郭国汀律师第五次会见清水君
·狱中会见清水君手记
·郭国汀就清水君案上诉审江苏高级法院刑一庭王振林法官函
·作家黄金秋被无罪判重刑十二年辩护律师郭国汀谴责中共司法不公
·我为留学生英雄清水君抗辩
[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