Isn't it about time we had this debate??

[kentuck]

The President of this country is not a King. Our Founders primarily created the office of the President so there would be someone in charge, a Commander in Chief, in case we had to go to war. The power was with the people and their representatives in Congress. That is why they gave Congress the right to declare war.

We have had enough of this "Unitary Executive" theory created by Bush Jr and his merry band of pranksters. It is time for it to end. One person, the President, can always find a reason to go to war. And they have. The people are ready to throw this discredited theory in the trash bin of history.

This is the legacy of Barack Obama. Will he restore our Constitution to its rightful place, along with the role of the President? Will he say "No more!" to the defense contractors and the war mongers that are breaking our nation and destroying our very spirit as a nation?

My sincerest hope is that the President will see and do the right thing. In his speech Tuesday night, I hope he says that he is going to obey the Constitution that he swore to uphold and that he will abide by the vote of the Congress. He maintains the right to defend this nation in whatever way he thinks is necessary if we are in present or imminent danger. He still has the right to send troops and to order attacks on our enemies under the War Powers Act. But he does not have the right to act unilaterally at any other time without the consent of the Congress. The Bush Doctrine is over. The Unitary Executive theory is over. America is a nation of laws and even the President of the United States must adhere to those laws.

[TM99]

1. I am not holding my breath.

The Imperial Presidency has been long in the making from Lincoln through FDR through Bush II and now Obama.

Once power is gained, it is never willingly given up. History shows us that.

The only thing that will change this is if the other branches of government by the will of the people take it away. Well the other option is another revolution but Americans are too anesthetized and unaware for that to be likely any time soon.

[unblock]

2. a couple nits:

first, the founders didn't create the office of the presidency solely for the role of commander-in-chief. they certainly gave the president quite a few powers beyond being in charge of the military.

second, shrub wasn't really the first with this notion of the unitary presidency, although perhaps the term was first used during his administration. nixon's administration had a less haughty version of it: if the president does it, it's legal.


more important, the power to get us into war fundamentally rests with the powerful business interests that have the means to profit immensely from it. this quaint little debate between the paper powers of the president vs. congress only amount to the particulars of the hoops these business interests must jump through, and whose purses must be lined.

[kentuck]

4. True.

Corrected to say "primarily" because the Founders debated whether or not to have a Presidency at all. They did give the Executive other powers also.

[kelliekat44]

3. He is not destroying the power of the President by abiding by the will of the people thru Congress.

He is strengthening the rule of law. The President still has veto power and the power of the bully pulpit and the Executive Order. If he abides by the will of Congress he is helping to restore the rule of law and making it easier to punish lawbreakers of all stripes.

[kentuck]

5. I agree.

Sorry for the miscommunication.

[L0oniX]

7. So uhm should the war criminals and banksters start to worry now?

[L0oniX]

6. "President of the United States must adhere to those laws" LMFAO & the war criminals are free

Do ya really expect a POTUS that lets war criminals and banksters off the hook to give a shit about the law?

[kentuck]

8. I think...

it is very disappointing and very difficult to turn around such a huge ship of state. He does not have the people or the Cabinet to perform such an impossible mission. But that does not mean that he cannot define the Presidency as it is written in the Constitution.