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
·《民族英雄蒋介石》76 英勇的太原保卫战
***(33)《匪首毛泽东》郭国汀编译
·《匪首毛泽东》
·《匪首毛泽东》郭国汀编译
·《匪首毛泽东》2、毛泽东滥杀政敌
·《匪首毛泽东》3、共匪滥杀无辜,十万红军将士地方党干魂飞魄散
·《匪首毛泽东》5、冷血毛泽东为权力疯狂滥杀红军将士
·《匪首毛泽东》6、毛泽东周恩来诱骗张学良发动西安事变
·《匪首毛泽东》7、受苏联指令张治中挑起八一三上海抗战
·《匪首毛泽东》8、中共假抗日真勾结日寇,狠打抗日国军
·《匪首毛泽东》9、平型关战斗和百团大战
·《匪首毛泽东》10、宛南事变:毛为争权借刀杀项英
·《匪首毛泽东》11、延安洗脑运动中共种植贩卖毒品
· 《匪首毛泽东》12、发动国共内战的罪魁是毛泽东!
·《匪首毛泽东》19.极度无知而狂妄自大的毛泽东
***中国问题研究
***(34)《论中共极权专制暴政的本质》郭国汀著
·共产党极权专制暴政的变革
·论中国共产党极权暴政的滔天罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》之二
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共夺取政权以前的杀人罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共盗国窃政后的滥杀罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共谋杀性大饥荒
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》毛共文革罪孽深重
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》六四天安门屠城
·《中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共统治西藏罪孽深重
·《郭律师论中共极权流氓暴政》郭国汀著
·共产党极权暴政为争权夺利党内自相残杀的罪恶
·论推翻中共极权专制暴政的合法性
·中共政权始终是一个非法政权 郭国汀
·驳中共政权合法论 郭国汀
·中共极权暴政是严重污染毁灭中国生态环境的罪魁祸首
·论中共政权新闻控制-----2008年《巴黎中国新闻媒体控制国际研讨会》专稿
·论中共专制暴政与酷刑(全文)
·论中共专制暴政下的宗教信仰自由(英文)
·中国共产党极权专制流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·中共政权是一个极权专制流氓暴政
·《郭国汀评论》第十九集:论中共暴政
·《郭国汀评论》第二十集:论中共暴政(下)
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个超级暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个极权暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权是个流氓暴政
·郭国汀评论:论中共是个犯罪组织
·论中共的骗子本能
·《郭国汀评论》第六集中共暴政与精神病
·郭国汀评论:论中共暴政体制性司法腐败
·郭国汀评论:论中共暴政体制性司法腐败(下)
·论逼良为娼的中共律师体制
·论逼良为娼的中共律师体制(下)
· 郭律师评价中共律师诉讼及司法体制现状
·郭国汀评论第八十三集:暴政恶法不除,国民无宁日
· 郭国汀评论第八十四集:暴政恶法不除,国民无宁日(下)
·郭国汀评论第六十六集中国共产党极权暴政的滔天罪行
·郭国汀评论第六十七集:中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十八集:中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪行
·郭国汀评论第六十九集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十集:中共极权专制暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十一集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十二集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十三集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十四集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十五集:中共极权流氓暴政的滔天大罪
·郭国汀评论第七十六集:中共极权流氓暴政的深重罪孽
·郭国汀评论第七十七集:共产党极权暴政的缩命
·郭国汀评论第七十八集:论共产党极权暴政的宿命(中)
·郭国汀评论第七十九集:论共产党极权暴政的宿命(下)
·郭国汀评论第八十集:中共极权暴政摧残教育的深重罪孽
·共产党极权专制暴政的滥杀罪孽
·中共极权暴政的野蛮残暴杀人罪孽
·中共人为制造谋杀性大饥荒虐杀农民5000万
·中国反对派不能合作的根源何在?
·共产主义是好的,只是被共产党搞糟了?
·中共极权暴政下根本不可能存在法治
·今日中共还是共产党吗?
·推翻中共专制暴政是替天行道 郭国汀
·中共政权是吸血鬼暴政
·江泽民和胡锦涛均极可能是货真价实的特大汉奸卖国贼!
·中共专制暴政与生态环境
·中共专制暴政正在毁灭中国生态环境
·郭国汀论中共专制暴政与酷刑(上)
·论中共专制暴政与酷刑(中)
·郭国汀论中共专制暴政与酷刑(下)
·郭国汀评论:胡锦涛不是在执政而是在犯罪
·彻底推翻极权专制流氓暴政!永志不忘六四屠城滔天罪孽!
·朱镕基犯有贪污盗窃罪吗?
·朱镕基有关劳动保险金的罪责是非之我见
·中共党员是罪犯!——评贺卫方教授的中共分成两派说
·中共党员是罪犯 无耻无行文人是重罪犯!
·不是中国政府而是中共暴政丧尽天良!不但温家宝而且胡锦涛皆乃政治精神重症患者!
·中国共产党早已病入膏肓无可救药!
·杜绝三鹿毒奶粉事件的三项原则
·郭国汀律师系统批判中共极权专制暴政论文目录
·郭国汀中共政权已经彻底流氓化
·中共是极端残暴下流无耻的流氓暴政 郭国汀
·怀念当代中国最高贵的人——杨天水/张林
·关于中共政权合法性及专制暴政与人种信仰关系的论战 郭国汀
·南郭/推翻颠覆中共流氓暴政有功无罪!
[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