More from the blogosphere about executive power

Another week, another lorryload of blogs commenting on the future of King George’s imperial presidency. Cheerfully, many bloggers see fit to compare the merits of the current front-runners, and their potential for a reigning in of executive power. Here’s Daniel W. Drezner:

“It’s a funny thing, however, about becoming president — the prerogatives of power that look so monarchical from the outside don’t look so bad on the inside.”

Drezner asks, “Which candidate will hoard executive power the least?” He refers to a Washington Post article by Michael Abramovitz that came out two days ago:

“Asked by my colleague Glenn Kessler whether he would ever consider issuing a signing statement as president, Sen. McCain was emphatic: “Never, never, never, never. If I disagree with a law that passed, I’ll veto it.”

This “sharp break in ideological practice” for McCain puts him at odds with Senators Clinton and Obama, both of whom reserve the right to use signing statements in extreme circumstances. The Post article was noted across the blogosphere, with Perrspectives noting that McCain’s distaste for signing statements has grown out of a “betrayal” by George Bush on McCain’s amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act. It’s politics getting personal.

Hydrablog has more to say on signing statements and John McCain. It also comments on a piece of direct policy being exposed, for once. Like many blogs, it compares McCain’s stance to those from Clinton and Obama.

Also in the blogosphere, numerous book reviews of some of the many works suddenly being published that refer to Bush’s seemingly endless powers. Here’s History News Network on Joseph Wheelan’s “How to Game a Presidential Legacy.”

“Executive Order 13233 gives ex-presidents nearly unlimited discretionary authority to prohibit the release of their papers, and allows them to name designees who can act in their stead. Moreover, a sitting president may also prevent the release of a predecessor’s papers — as Bush has already done with some of Ronald Reagan’s papers — even when the predecessor has authorized his papers’ release.”

And here’s Law and Politics Book Review on Howard Ball’s “Bush, the Detainees and the Constitution: the Battle Over Presidential Power in the War on Terror.”

“Whatever its other merits may be, George W. Bush’s tenure as president has been a great boon for scholars of presidential power, constitutionalism, and public law.”

This may all seem pretty dry, but there’s been some good stuff comparing the candidates and their approach to executive power. David Nather from cq.com examines Obama’s attitude towards the constitution, and its limits on presidential power.

“In general, Obama talks about himself as the presidential candidate who would do the most to restore open government and constitutional checks and balances. But voters would pretty much have to take his word for it. Of all the front-running candidates, Obama has left the thinnest paper trail to allow them to make their own judgments.”

Nather looks at some of Obama’s old mentors from the University of Chicago, Laurence H. Tribe and Cass R. Sunstein. Both, he says, “have taken positions that do not entirely reject the prerogatives Bush has claimed for the presidency.”

There seems to be a lot of discussion online about “Which Candidate Will Roll Back Executive Power,” (democraticunderground.com). Only problem is, nobody seems to know.  The American Scholar answers the questions, “Who Cares About Executive Supremacy?” Hint: it’s not the media. Lincoln Caplan writes how “the scope of presidential power is the most urgent and the most ignored legal and political issue of our time.” Basically, the candidates aren’t pressing hard enough what a serious issue it is.

“Among the current Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, however, none has attacked executive supremacy as forcefully as past candidates assailed judicial supremacy. None has made executive restraint a rallying cry. Torture, illegal surveillance, and other contentious practices of the Bush administration have drawn criticism from candidates of both parties, but not one of them has focused on the underlying problem.”

It may sound odd, but one of the most insightful analyses of the questions that need to be asked in terms of executive power comes from a teaching website. Teachable Moment, from Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility, suggests questions for students to consider when questioning candidates:

• Do you support wiretapping American citizens as part of a surveillance program to prevent terrorist acts? If so, why? If not, why not?
  
• What will be your policy on “signing statements” that may cancel out the congressional legislation to which they are attached?
  
• How do you define torture? What will be your policy for the interrogation of American prisoners? Will it differ from current policy? Why or why not?
  
• Do you support the current policy of “extraordinary rendition,” that is, transferring terror suspects to countries where they may be tortured? If so, why? If not, why not?