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
·货代违约造成贸易合同毁约应向谁索赔损失?
·对一起复杂行政诉讼案的法律思考
·2002年国际船舶保险条款
·Peter . Liu劳动争议初步法律意见/郭国汀
·船舶保险合同(保证条款)争议案析/郭国汀
·自有集装箱被占用案初步法律意见/郭国汀
·马士基集团香港有限公司与中国包装进出口安微公司签发放行提单再审争议案析/郭国汀
·析一起签发放行记名提单再审争议案/郭国汀
·上海亚太国际集装箱储运有限公司诉天津海峡货运有限公司上海分公司海上货物运输合同货物被盗损失代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·海上保险合同争议起诉状/郭国汀
·民事答辩反诉状
·关于应当如何理解《INSTITUTE CARGO CLAUSES (A)》中“一切险”责任范围的咨询复函/郭国汀
·海运运费及代理费问题的解答/郭国汀
·美亚保险公司上海分公司诉BDP亚洲太平洋有限公司海上货运合同货损争议代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·货代违约造成贸易合同无效怎么办?郭国汀
·捷运通有限公司诉东方集团上海市对外贸易有限公司海上货运合同争议案析/郭国汀
·平安保险公司代位追偿案析/郭国汀
·记名提单若干法律问题上海吉龙塑胶制品有限公司诉上海捷士国际货运代理有限公司无单放货争议案析/郭国汀
·乐清外贸公司与长荣航运公司海上货物运输合同争议案初步法律意见书/郭国汀
·新世纪轮船舶保险合同争议上诉代理词
·“富江7号”轮沉船保险合同争议案析/郭国汀
·上海吉龙塑胶制品有限公司诉上海捷士国际货运代理有限公司无单放货争议案析/郭国汀
·马士基集团香港有限公司与中国包装进出口安微公司签发放行提单再审争议案析/郭国汀
·评一起重大涉外海商纠纷案的判决 郭国汀
·请教郭国汀律师有关留置权问题
·新加坡捷富意运通有限公司诉上海中波国际贸易有限公司运费争议案析/郭国汀
·中国海关实际运作的宣誓证言/郭国汀
·亚洲的国际商事仲裁中心及其仲裁制度的特点-颜云青 郭国汀译
·亚洲的国际商事仲裁中心及其仲裁制度的特点-颜云青 郭国汀 译(下)
***郭国汀律师专译著
***(1)《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 郭国汀校
·寄语中国青少年——序《英国保险协会保险条款诠释》
·《英国保险协会保险条款诠释》译后记
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第二编 海上货物保险格式
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第三编 海上船舶格式保险单
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第四编 对船东的附加保险
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第五编 为各利益方的保险
·《协会保险条款诠释》陈剖建/郭国汀译 第六编 战争和罢工险格式
***(2)英国协会保险货物保险条款英中对译
·1934年1月1日协会更换保险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物(A)条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物保险(B)和(C)条款/郭国汀译
·1982年8月1日协会恶意损害保险条款/郭国汀译
·1983年9月5日协会商品贸易(A)(B)(C)保险条款/郭国汀译
·1984年1月1日协会黄麻保险条款/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日协会冻肉保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶战争险和罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年1月1日协会货物战争险保险条款/郭国汀译
·1982年10月1日协会煤炭保险条款/郭国汀译
·1983年10月1日和1995年11月1日协会船舶定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1984年1月1日协会天然橡胶(液态胶乳除外)保险条款/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日协会冷冻食品(冻肉除外)保险A条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会运费定期战争和罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日协会冷冻食品(冻肉除外)保险(C)条款/郭国汀译
·1983年2月1日协会散装油类保险条款/郭国汀译
·1983年12月1日协会盗窃、偷窃和提货不着保险条款(仅用于协会保险条款)/郭国汀译
·1986年1月1日国际肉类贸易协会冻肉展期保险条款(仅适用于协会冻肉保险(A)条款/郭国汀译
·1986年4月1日协会木材贸易联合会条款(与木材贸易联合会达成的协议)/郭国汀译
***(3)英国协会保险船舶条款英中对译
·1983年10月1日和1995年11月1日协会船舶定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1987年7月20日协会船舶港口险定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1988年6月1日协会造船厂的风险保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶乘客设备定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶航次保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶全损、共同海损和3/4碰撞责任航次保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶运费定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会机器损害附加免赔额保险条款/郭国汀译
·1985年11月1日协会游艇保险条款/郭国汀译
·1987年7月20日协会船壳定期保赔保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日附加免赔额适应条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶额外责任定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶全损定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶限制危险定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶运费航次保险条款/郭国汀译
·1996年1月1日协会运费共同海损-污染费用保险条款/郭国汀译
·1987年1月1日协会集装箱定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1987年7月20日协会渔船保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶搬移另件保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶附加危险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶全损、共同海损、3/4碰撞责任定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶营运费用和增加价值(全损险,包括额外责任)定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶租赁设备定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1997年3月1日协会船舶抵押权人利益保险条款/郭国汀译
***(4)英国协会保险运费、战争、罢工险保险条款英中对译
·1982年1月1日协会货物罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶营运费用和增值定期保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶战争险和罢工险条款/郭国汀译
·The Practice of Marine Insurance: Marine Insurance Policy Forms
·1982年1月1日协会货物战争险保险条款/郭国汀译
·1995年11月1日协会船舶运费定期保险条款/郭国汀译
[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