×
Clinton and Executive Power -- Enough, Already! The Times' man on the Clinton beat, Patrick Healy, has an interesting story this morning on Senator Clinton's new approach to the question of whether she should apologize for her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq War, and the fight within Hillaryland on the subject. Apparently the winning strategy is to use a firm refusal to apologize as a symbol of her toughness and resolve. I have a feeling that strategy won't hold for long -- not just because it won't satisfy Democratic primary voters, but because it is exactly the definition of toughness that got us into this mess -- but I was more alarmed by the following passages:
Further, I as much as anyone would like to see the next president have the power as well as the political capital to get things done -- to end the war, enact universal health care, etc.
However, we have just gone through a period of the most staggering expansion of executive power in history, and I suspect that we don't know the half of it. The setup that was the Iraq resolution, the manipulation of the executive branch itself in order to deceive Congress was one example of it. The next president will have to comb through a mass of undisclosed executive orders, secret legal opinions, bizarre theories, manipulative structures, embedded political appointees, excessive classification, and let some daylight back in. The last thing we need at this moment is yet another president who "believes in executive authority and Congressional deference." We need a president who respects separation of powers and democracy. After all, the next president will not be our last.
These are not quotes from Senator Clinton herself, so I'll look for further clarification, but it seems that in effect they would endorse the view that Bush did not even have an obligation to go to Congress to seek authorization for the use of force. If the question was legitimately before Congress, and as a Senator she had free will to vote yes or no based on the information available to her, then she should take Edwards' approach and admit being misled. On the other hand, if she "is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief can overrule a commander in chief," then is she saying that when Congress was given the opportunity to "overrule" Bush -- by refusing the 2002 authorization of use of force -- it would not have been legitimate to use it?
This is a very big issue for me, and Senator Clinton's actual view of executive power should perhaps be a bigger issue than the "apology" itself for voters who are weighing the candidates.
-- Mark Schmitt.
Mrs. Clinton's belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president - her 'responsibility gene,' she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority....I'm sympathetic to the fact that Clinton's view of leadership was forged during a period when the president was besieged by a hostile, vicious Congress. And I accept that every president will have a somewhat aggressive view of executive power. All presidents, for example, refuse to completely accept the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and all presidents would like to have the Line-Item Veto.Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief.
Further, I as much as anyone would like to see the next president have the power as well as the political capital to get things done -- to end the war, enact universal health care, etc.
However, we have just gone through a period of the most staggering expansion of executive power in history, and I suspect that we don't know the half of it. The setup that was the Iraq resolution, the manipulation of the executive branch itself in order to deceive Congress was one example of it. The next president will have to comb through a mass of undisclosed executive orders, secret legal opinions, bizarre theories, manipulative structures, embedded political appointees, excessive classification, and let some daylight back in. The last thing we need at this moment is yet another president who "believes in executive authority and Congressional deference." We need a president who respects separation of powers and democracy. After all, the next president will not be our last.
These are not quotes from Senator Clinton herself, so I'll look for further clarification, but it seems that in effect they would endorse the view that Bush did not even have an obligation to go to Congress to seek authorization for the use of force. If the question was legitimately before Congress, and as a Senator she had free will to vote yes or no based on the information available to her, then she should take Edwards' approach and admit being misled. On the other hand, if she "is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief can overrule a commander in chief," then is she saying that when Congress was given the opportunity to "overrule" Bush -- by refusing the 2002 authorization of use of force -- it would not have been legitimate to use it?
This is a very big issue for me, and Senator Clinton's actual view of executive power should perhaps be a bigger issue than the "apology" itself for voters who are weighing the candidates.
-- Mark Schmitt.
