How does your candidate view? Executive Authority

[Adelante]

March 22 2007, on Olbermann's segment: "Worse than Watergate"

KO said to John Dean: "Should this be the first question we ask of every candidate for office in 2008, "How important do you think and how powerful do you think this job really is?"

I think it is a very elemental question that should be answered by each candidate.

What has your candidate had to say on executive authority/privilege/power and the separation of powers?

Thanks.

OLBERMANN: In your latest column at Findlaw.com, you‘re arguing that the Bush administration wants to establish a new kind of presidency, not just separate from, but superior to the other branches. How does all of this, from the issue of firing these attorneys, to this debate over whether or not anybody from the White House can testify to conversations they had amongst themselves, how does that all fit into that theory, in your mind?

DEAN: Well, I think it all kind of does fit. When I first got interested in conservatism, Keith, the presidency was viewed as something that was dangerous when it was strong. A decade later, when Nixon came in, it started to swing. Then with Reagan, Bush, and Bush, it has now gone 180 degrees, where the conservative canon calls for a strong president.

-snip

OLBERMANN: Lastly, John, given how often we‘ve been talking about presidential powers and parameters, and the outreach and the imperial presidency, and the superimperial presidency, should this be the first question we ask of every candidate for office in 2008, How important do you think and how powerful do you think this job really is?

DEAN: Well, I think that‘s an absolute positively essential question that be asked. In fact, I think it‘s so important, I happen to be writing a book about it right now, so your question is very timely. And I‘m on the last chapter, and I think it‘s an essential question that these process questions, which typically are never addressed by candidates, that they are addressed.

Because I‘ve found some very solid research that shows that the American public cares a great deal about this kind of process. They understand it, they‘re interested in it. And when they think they‘re getting short shift, they really get very upset.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17754965/

[Adelante]

1. No takers?

:kick:

[Clark2008]

2. I would assume that most haven't said a word about it, to

be honest.

[Adelante]

3. You may be right

Their supporters sure aren't offering any insightful quotes.

[antigop]

4. Who said: "Our Union in a State of Great Peril?"

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0131-11.htm

Domestic Spying:
"The President's program of spying on Americans is illegal, unjustified, a gross abuse of executive authority and a danger to the basic rights of every American. Our Constitution is clear, Congress makes the laws and the President executes the laws. Congress did not authorize the spying on Americans without a court's approval, and no one is above the law.

"Congress and the American public should not be distracted from these underlying facts, no matter the self-interested efforts of the President to distract, confuse and divide us."

[FrenchieCat]

6. Why Am I not surprised?

:thumbsup: for that! :)

[antigop]

8. Another link....

http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/01/17/20060117-A5-00.html

>>
It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations . . .? Those are the words of the nonpartisan legislative experts at the Congressional Research Service in a recent detailed analysis presented to Congress, at my request, on the NSA spying program. I could not agree more.

The president?s program of spying on Americans is illegal, unjustified, a gross abuse of executive authority and a danger to the basic rights of every American. Our Constitution is clear, Congress makes the laws and the president executes the laws.

Congress did not authorize the spying on Americans without a court?s approval, and no one is above the law. Congress and the American public should not be distracted from these underlying facts, no matter the selfinterested efforts of the president to distract, confuse and divide us.
>>

[antigop]

5. Who said: "The President Needs a Reality Check"?

http://kucinich.house.gov/NEWS/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=56155

“President Bush is continuing down the road toward a failed policy in Iraq. It is imperative that Congress step up to its constitutional responsibility to restrain this ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY by notifying the President that we will no longer agree to fund the war in Iraq. Members simply cannot say they oppose the war and vote to continue to fund it...."

[antigop]

7. Who said: "I am deeply disturbed by the recent concentration of war powers in the executive branch."

http://www.warandlaw.homestead.com/files/Surnews2.html

“I am deeply disturbed by the recent concentration of war powers in the executive branch,” Kucinich writes. He pledges to “work to restore our systems of checks and balances” and would “insulate the intelligence community from political influence.”

[Cameron27]

10. That's great stuff from Kucinich.

He'd be the last one to abuse power IMO.

[Adelante]

11. Thanks, antigop

For getting this thread rolling :)

[antigop]

9. Those were for Kucinich -- for the rest of candidates use Google n/t

[rinsd]

12. I'm fairly sure that Hillary Clinton is in favor of executive authority to a degree.

She certainly believes in checks and balances though.

[antigop]

14. Um, link, please? n/t

[antigop]

13. Kucinich on opposing extension to the Patriot Act

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/floor_speeches/def_patriot_ext1feb.php

>>
Speaking in opposition to H.R. 4659, a 5-week extension of the USA PATRIOT Act, Congressman Kucinich said:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, because it should become crystal clear that the administration is currently and will continue to abuse, attack and outright deny the civil liberties of American citizens in defiance of our Constitution. This administration is illegally wiretapping American citizens, illegally collecting information on peace groups and illegally using signing statements to ignore the torture ban recently enacted by the Congress. The administration is violating the laws Congress has passed, and they are violating the U.S. Constitution.

"I will not vote to give this administration any police powers until I am assured that their attack on our democracy is reined in. This Congress is walking away from the checks and balances of our democracy.

"I do not believe that this Congress was zealous in oversight investigation prior to 2001. I am not a partisan. I have joined my colleagues in an oversight role prior to 2001. However, since that time we have ignored our constitutional duty, and 200 years of American democracy has suffered. The complacency of Congress is clearly viewed by the administration as a license to ignore the laws it disagrees with and demand Congress pass extended police powers.

"I reject this complacency in defense of the United States Constitution. I will not vote to give a single new police power to this administration. The bill before us today enables the FBI to investigate any American for any reason, without the checks and balances of a judicial system. History tells us that unchecked police powers with little or no oversight will be abused, and citizens will be harmed.

"The administration's record in this area is concrete proof that history repeats itself. I am for a strong police function that protects citizens of this great Nation, not a police function which nullifies our constitutional rights."
>>

[antigop]

15. How many do you want? n/t