When sitting there deciding whether to vote Republican or not, keep in mind the Republicans told us if Clinton got into office, the country would turn into a socialist nightmare, and if the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, why not only would there be a radical "san fransico agenda" passed, but we'd spend millions of dollars impeaching the president, and cut off funds so harshly that soldiers would run out of basic supplies in Iraq
I certainly don't remember the past year, or back before Bush in 2000, as being some radical "san fransico" nightmare
However I have seen a nightmare, it was all GOP appointees writing the Court of Appeals opinion in Hamdi, where they ruled that any US citizen can be labeled an "enemy combatant" by the president and held for the rest of their lives in a overseas prison without ONE trial or an ability to ask for ONE hearing
If you think moving towards that kind of...fascism...is not scary, but SCHIP, oh dear, that really gives you the creeps, then you should probably skip this thread
So here are the GOP candidates on executive power:
Boston Globe asked all the candidates a series of questions, and to take their time and give nice, intelligent, complete answers
Survey reveals candidates' views on scope of executive power - The Boston Globe
Mitt Romney:
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
A President must always act in the best interests of the United States to protect us against a potential threat, including a nuclear Iran. Naturally, it is always preferable to seek agreement of all – leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world – where those circumstances are
available.
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress’s current plans to try to do exactly that.
So, Congress is not only irrelevant in any stage of long-term war plans, but also they are to be ignored if they specifically tell the president not to torture someone a specific way (aka, you may not cut the fingers off detainees in cuba...president goes 'I feel it's in the best interest if you go ahead and do that anyway'...that's President Romney
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson all ran away from the questions and never answered them, but putting together their various debates, we can all agree Mitt's talking points are the echo chamber of the above three
[Rudy] said that a president "must be free to defend the nation," but provided no specific details about what limits, if any, Giuliani believes he would have to obey as president - in national security or otherwise
John McCain:
Well, encouragingly, he answered the torture question...as a victim of torture would: No
However on troops, he gives the standard GOP line on Congress micromanaging wars even when we're talking about giving equal break time for war deployments (ie 15 months in Iraq, 15 months home = a no no)...he says the president "should" go to Congress if there is a war plan set for months down the road
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
On that one, the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in the Boumedienne case and it is expected to rule early next year on that question. So I will be interested in seeing how the Court rules.
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
McCain declined to answer this question.
11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
McCain declined to answer this question.
Okay, not a nightmare, but a little "eh...I just had 8 years of Bush with domestic spying and detained American citizens without rights, I don't know if I'm up for a 'claimed' Bush-light"
Let's look at the big evil big government nightmare that is Hillary Clinton *scary halloween sound effects*
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
No. The President is not above the law.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No. Although Congress cannot change the President’s role as the Nation's Commander in Chief, the Constitution expressly gives Congress war powers, including the power to raise and support armies and to establish rules and regulations to govern them. These powers, among others, give Congress the authority to cap the number of troops deployed as well as set minimum home-stays. Similar limitations have been passed throughout our country's history and Presidents have adhered to them.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
I have opposed the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements, and as President, I would not use signing statements to disagree on policy grounds with legislation passed by Congress or as an end run around the veto. I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
I fundamentally believe that our constitutional system depends upon each branch striving to accommodate the interests of the other, and the President should seek to accommodate legitimate congressional requests for information. I also believe in an open transparent government that fulfills its obligation to share as much information as possible with the public. But it is settled law that certain limited "communications made by presidential advisors in the course of preparing advice for the President, come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President."
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
The international human rights treaties that the U.S. has joined represent an historic advance for the cause of human freedom. Under our Constitution, they also are the law of the land, and the President has the same duty to comply with them as with any other valid law.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
I disagree with Attorney General Gonzales. I have long believed that the right to habeas corpus offers fundamental protection against unchecked government power. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The Supreme Court should reaffirm this principle in the Boumediene case now pending and correct the mistake Congress made when it attempted to rescind habeas corpus through the Military Commissions Act.
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress's prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration's view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.
11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
I have a large and diverse group of advisers.
12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
I am happy to tell voters when I stand on the issues. I have a long record in public life, and I leave it to the voters to judge.
Well, Hillary Clinton doesn't seem so bad after all...infact I liked ALL her answers...the closest person to answering her questions in such a non-fascist way? Ron Paul
Depending on which side of the fence you stand, you may prefer Ron Paul's answers:
Boston.com - Special reports - News
However I didn't like his attitude on Congress's authority over the US Armed Forces, nor did he seem to recognize a basic tenet of the Constitution that treaties ratified by the Senate are the supreme law of the land...not subject a later president saying "no I disapprove of international treaties!"
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It would certainly seem though, if Hillary is nominated, and Ron Paul is not, and does not run, libertarians should vote for Hillary in droves considering how close her foreign policy views are to Ron Paul...and domestically, the GOP has shown it can make deficits with the best of them and with 41+ GOP senators, the GOP will always have a seat at the table to stop any "radical san fransico" agendas
12-26-2007, 07:08 AM
