Calling all Constitutional Scholars: Why does Shrub get away with ABUSE of executive powers?

[RiverStone]

I'm baffled. Shrub continues to spew forth his I AM THE DECIDER CRAP crap. Today he says: "I'm the decision maker" about sending more troops to the war." and "I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/26/politics/main2401079.shtml

I, I, I !!!! :wtf:


* * * * *

I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, but I think it reads that all laws originate in the Congress and that the executive branch's role is to see that they are faithfully executed. What I find baffling is Shrub seems to be legislating and policymaking through his own dictatorial "I" version of executive order, while TOTALLY ignoring the Constitution.

Have his actions risen to what would be considered abuse of executive power?

Am I missing something, or have our leaders on the Hill turned into a bunch of sheep while self anointed dictator Shrub gives the finger to anyone who dares to oppose his own brand of delusional logic?

I thought our Constitution was crafted to prevent this kind of abuse of power!? :shrug:






On edit: I must give credit to a few very UN-sheepish folks: Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy - for proposing "binding" legislation to take the purse strings away from the dictator - and Chuck Hagel, who has eloquently spoken out against the escalation and has refused to march in lock step with other rethugs.

[woodsprite]

1. Because his family has paid off enought of the people in the right places? n/t

[Perky]

9. self-delete

[mmonk]

2. Abuse of power is accompanied by those that allow it.

[atreides1]

3. Ask those members of Congress

Who have allowed him to abuse executive powers, over the last 5 years!

[jelly]

4. The very name "Executive" branch

suggests that its primary intended function was not to make up plans, but merely to execute to its best ability the plans made up by the legislative branch. Bush's job is to "execute" Congress' plan for the US's future involvement with Iraq. It's up to Congress to "decide" what that further involvement should be.

On the other hand, the Constitution does seem to provide for some checks on Congress by the Executive branch - such as Presidential Veto power.

[Parisle]

5. Remember that "boiling the frog" metaphor?

---Heat the water slowly and the frog just sits there 'til he's cooked. Constitutional protections and safeguards, including separation of powers and checks & balances,... are being chipped away little by little,.. and not in one big shocking coup. People are lazily sliding down the slope of apathy and comfort,.. unwilling to comprehend what is really happening,.. and that certainly precludes action, eh? Good thing the Minutemen didn't show up at Lexington or Concord with nothing but gossip and sanctimony.

[RiverStone]

7. So who will save the frog?

Well stated Parisle. :)

Though is it solely up to We The People to remind lawmakers who have been lazily sliding down the slope of apathy and comfort to pull their heads out?

How much more erosion of our Constitution must occur before it is obvious to ALL that this is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship (with corporate favors of course)?

[Parisle]

11. Thank you, River,....... Check this out:

--- Here is a link to a state-level resolution I wrote for Vermont last year,... and about which I am trying to elicit some comment from DU'ers today. ("Draft of a Prior Dissent resolution for states" --- General Discussion - Politics) Please read it and let me know what you think...

www.vermontrepublic.org/issues_essays/other_articles/state_sovereignty_resolution_0

[Bucky]

6. Bush does have a thin veil of legality to his actions in Iraq

The IWR, while itself of questionable virtue, does provide a legal coverage to Bush for all his actions in anything he cares to call the war against terrorism.

Invoking the power of the purse is great when there aren't troops on the ground. Once they are in-theater, yanking funding would be political self mutilation. I don't think we should be providing the Republicans with any crowbars. There are better leverage points to pursue that, in the long run, won't really affect the burn rate of American or Iraqi lives.

Under the constitution the president alone has final authority of troop deployment. It needs to be a little difficult for Congress to interfere in a president running the people's business. This time the Constitution is working against the people's interests--but overall it's a fair system.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. Read United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=1901-1939/1936/1936_98

A supreme court opinion from 1936 which says as dicta that basically, the president is the sole representative of the country in foreign affairs. That opinion makes me want to light it on fire, but it is out there.

(caveat: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv.)

[Perky]

10. As Commander in Chief

The president has the authority to commit trops and manage those numbers up and down. He only gets in trouble if he is not pre-authorized to wage war.

I personally think Bush has the the legal authority under the broadest rendering of the IWR. If COngress were to enact a new IWR it would change the whole ball game. and if Bush then contravened the new IWR he could and should be impeached.