Commander-in-Chief = Omnipotence
WELL-PUBLICIZED are the presidents sound-bites denouncing torture. Little-publicized are his actual deeds supporting and encouraging it. Don't be fooled, be informed. - Vox
Bush could bypass new torture ban
"''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.""
..."This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said."
..."Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law."
Once again I say GWB and his criminal cronies have no respect for the law.
- Vox
Bush could bypass new torture ban
"''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.""
..."This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said."
..."Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law."
Once again I say GWB and his criminal cronies have no respect for the law.
- Vox
posted by VoxInfo at 9:10 AM
3 Comments:
I hate to do that whole "Well, in such-and-such a country, we do it this way..." but I'm going to anyway!
In England, as soon as someone becomes PM, no matter how much public support they had going in, you're supposed to mistrust them, denegrate them, say nasty things about them in the press, and generally make it crystal clear to them that they work for YOU and that any power they have is entirely conditional and can be taken away if they start getting too big for their boots. We even make the Royal Family feel that way - by constantly reminding them that we chopped Charles II's head off for being too mouthy, so they'd better bloody watch it!
Anyway, my point is that America needs to do a bit more of this instead of putting its leaders up on pedestals and worshipping them like gods - or reviling them like devils, depending on which side of the aisle you're on.
Bush - like Clinton before him - is just a dude (a dude with money). We need to remind him that he's just borrowing power and that he works for us, not the other way around.
I think part of the problem is that the Head of State and the person running the government really shouldn't be the SAME person. I think the founders made a crucial misstep there. The mantle of The Presidency creates this sense of (as you put it) omnipotence in the wearer - AND it consolidates power a little too much for my liking. (That said, I also think England should vote for a Head of State rather than automatically giving the office to the monarch - but that's a different issue.)
And that's my twopenneth.
I hear what your saying. But in a sense, the Presidency is actually a figurehead of sorts; although he is the "head of state" AND the Pres, he doesn't have all the power. THAT"S were I think the problem is in the US: we have forgotten the idea of checks-and-balances; about the 3 branches of gov't. The Pres only controls the executive branch. We as a populance are uneducated to the way our own gov't works. Add to this the role of the media, particularly in the past 20 yrs, and we're socialized into thinking that we can't question our own gov't, that they don't work for us, that they lead and we have no choice but to follow; that THIS is what America is supposed to look like. That's the shame of it all. The things that are going in these days are outrageous. I mean, this joker is admiting (loudly) that as Commander in chief, during a "time of war", he has the power of a KING! That is what he is saying.
But I think you may have found a solution with your mention of Charles II and his, um, demise.
- Vox
True, he's mainly Head of State, but he does choose the cabinet, which gives him power over who runs the government.
As for Charles. I think I meant Charles I, but I always get the Charles mixed up. They all look alike.
Charles II was the one who shagged everyone.
Ah, History...
Post a Comment
<< Home