When I lived in Morocco, I used to joke that I preferred my current king (Mohammed VI) to my former one in the US. As with all humor, it has the grain of truth- in this case a healthy boulder of it. George Bush repeatedly asserted his authority under the Unitary Presidential Theory that Cheney invented, which stated basically that a President can do whatever he wants, because his oath of office to defend the country outweighs the constitution. (If you recognize this idea from the Frost/Nixon movie, congratulate yourself on pulling together current affairs and film. Cheney came up with this idea back when he was working for Nixon.) After the 2000 elections, and everything George II did after that, many of us were unsure if he would go quietly into that good night; if he wouldn't find some sneaky way of claiming he had a right to stay in office. We were overjoyed when it actually worked, and he stepped down from power.
Overjoyed too soon, it would seem.
For it now turns out that Bush had another card up his sleeve. Although he asserted signing statements to reinterpret congressional laws (and incidentally the meaning of "executive" and "legislative") and executive privilege to a ridiculous degree, a hundred-fold any previous President, no one expected him to continue to do so after he stepped down. But indeed, he now has. For before he was ousted, he told Karl Rove to ignore any subpoenas from Congress. This is unheard of. Evidently, Bush feels he is still royalty, and can continue to issue decrees for anything that might happen in the future!
Keep in mind, asserting executive privilege does not have the force of law. It isn't as if Bush created a law that must be followed or overturned by congress. Nor is his assertion of privilege without controversy. Indeed, the vast majority of constitutional lawyers (with the significant exception of those who worked for Bush) think he overasserted himself in his continual decree that his supporters did not have to be interviewed by congress.
How we would love to move on. How we would love to stop pointing out the acts of injustice by the Bush administration, and focus on changing this country and the world under Obama. But Bush refuses to allow us to do so. One wonders what would happen if Obama directs Rove to honor the subpoena. Would Rove argue that his commitment was to the former President, regardless, and he must obey him? Or would Rove actually give the sitting President Presidential authority? After all, that was what Bush/Cheney argued for continuously- the President has absolute authority. Or when they said that, did they just mean Bush/Cheney?
4 comments:
You are an ingrade. You are looking for historical narratives to justify your ingraditude.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you meant to use the term "ingrate", and I will respond with that assumption.
Yes. I am not grateful for what George Bush did to our country and our planet. In case you're keeping track, I also am not grateful when a man rapes my daughter.
While it is true that historical narratives provide the justification for any theory of history, so that a theory is invalid when there is no historical narrative, you should also beware your own tendency to deny the historical record to justify your own privileged position in society.
Did you read the letter? It simply stated that the President ( Bush was still President) had not changed his position onrove testifying. "executive privilege" still covers those of the previous adminastration, if it dissolved at the end of a term, then all one would have to do s wait 4 or 8 years. Someone isn't unpardoned when the new President takes office. Just get over your self and your Bush hating ways. What happened to praying for our leaders? For understanding that is whom God had put in the office? Really, you should really understand what you write about, instead of reading someone elses tainted explanition and reguratating it.
Dear Fan,
Have you considered not hiding behind anonymity in your posts? Especially since I know whose Friend you are?
You are correct that some one isn't unpardoned when a new President takes office. You will also notice I never said they were. You seem to be confused between executive signing statements for future post-Presidential events (which was clearly the only focus on this post), and pardons.
Lastly, there is a difference between hatred of a man and hatred of his actions. It is called the recognition of evil. I am a Christian, so I am called to love even Hitler- and to hate with all my power his actions. You may not understand that, you probably disagree with that, but it is what my prophet called me to.
But I am curious as to who you think I was reading and regurgitating, since I really thought my ideas were original, and I am disappointed to hear that others have been reading my tainted words and passing it on as their own!
Post a Comment