On a scale of one to ten , how would you rate Bush ?

[bhsup]

To be fair, DT, no President has ever really acknowledged the legality of the War Powers Act. It isn't just Bush II.

 

[Ecofarm]

I know how its supposed to work. My concern is that the Bush legal team is so hell bent on expanding executive power that they're trying to squeeze the legislative branch's authority on matters of war.

Sorry, I edited and CFC was belching for a few minutes while I waited it to go through. Anyway, Bush ended a cease-fire. That is different than declaring war and the reason his advisors advised him as such. Surely you are aware of this technicality.

Arimage (or however you spell that), Yoo, Cheney and the others felt that the War Powers act was unconstitutional, and that the President has the sole power to decide when, where and how to go to war. Its part of something called the Unitary Executive Theory, and it scares the crap out of me. Why do you think Cheney went to court over who met with him setting energy policy? Is it because the infomation was scandalous? Nope. It was because he's trying to set more and more precident for expanded executive power.

An opinion by Cheney does not the law make. You know this. The VP does not have the power to legally decide what is constitutional and what is not. You're just throwing in irrelevant opinions to bash Bush's advisors. It has no bearing on the actual law.

1) Congress approved ending the cease-fire (although this was not legally necessary).

2) Congress funds the war.

You're too smart to pretend otherwise. Are you just trying to mis-inform young Bush bashers? You don't seem like the type to do that, so what's going on here?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

On the issue of war powers, I think we should all be a bit more clear.

Regarding the War Powers Act, every President has held the opinion that the WPA is unconstitutional, not because it ties the President's hands when he wants to start a war, but because it ties his hands in conducting an already-ongoing war. The Supreme Court has stated that it's going to stay out of the dispute, so we're not going to get a conclusive answer from them.

Regarding starting wars, I don't recall the Bush team ever arguing that Congress need not consent to starting a war. They did get a separate AUMF for the Iraq War after all.

Regarding funding wars, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Bush administration thinks they can fund wars without Congressional approval. After all, that's precisely what they did during the Iran-Contra Affair. Remember, the most obvious illegality wasn't selling weapons to the Iranian mullahs, it was funding the Contras after Congress specifically said they couldn't. Many of the people involved are now employed by the Bush administration. Of course, I don't think they could attempt to fund the Iraq War secretly, since it's so darn expensive.

Regarding the Unitary Executive -- downtown's absolutely right. The legal team in the White House now, people like David Addington and Dick Cheney, think that the executive should be vastly more powerful than it currently is. You can read the Yoo memos, which completely ignore decades of constitutional law in order to make an "argument" for the President's power to ignore Congress and his international obligations, and you can't help but conclude that they're trying to expand the power. The Unitary Executive should scare the crap out of people, especially anyone who claims to be devoted to limited government.

Cleo

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Ecofarm,

I'd like to point out that you're the only person I've ever heard argue that the 2002 Iraq War AUMF was not legally necessary as a matter of domestic constitutional law. Even the Bush administration did get a separate AUMF.

Cleo

 

[Luckymoose]

Nine, because he has done more good than bad.

 

[warpus]

I'll give him a generous 2.

 

[Ecofarm]

Ecofarm,

I'd like to point out that you're the only person I've ever heard argue that the 2002 Iraq War AUMF was not legally necessary as a matter of domestic constitutional law. Even the Bush administration did get a separate AUMF.

Cleo

Is ending a cease-fire the same thing as declaring war? I see a difference.

Anyway, Bush got authorization from congress and only congress can finance a war (Iran-contra not being a war).

For the record, I am against strengthening the powers of the executive office in the cases of both unitary executive and the line item veto.

Blaming Bush for the war, instead of congress, is uber-weak. The fact that some people are not so ignorant as to do this is reflected in the record low approval rating for Congress.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Ecofarm,

Well, the line-item veto is unconstitutional, so you're not going to have to worry about that.

Regarding the "cease-fire" thing -- that's not a legal distinction, and whether the President's authorized to use military force is a legal question. I understand the concept in the way you're talking about it, but in terms of what authorization the President would need from Congress to introduce American troops into battle (on the scale of the invasion of another country), it's just not there. As a matter of constitutional law, the 2002 AUMF was necessary for the President to order the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And he asked for it and got it. He may not have had to provide the War Powers Act stuff, but in terms of starting the war itself, he needed Congress's consent.

And I may have been unclear about the problem with the Iran-Contra Affair. It's not that it was a war, it was that the President appropriated money while there was a law passed by Congress that prohibited him from doing so. That's plainly contradicted by the text of the Constitution.

Cleo

 

[Ecofarm]

Ecofarm,

Well, the line-item veto is unconstitutional, so you're not going to have to worry about that.

Presidents have repeatedly asked Congress to give them a line item veto power. According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat." Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995.

The President was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton. [3][4]

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. The case was brought by the then New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 act unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto

Both political parties have tried it and one has succeeded. More than one of the current candidates (in the early primaries), including Romney, supported a constitutional amendment to do so.

There is a little reason for worry.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Ecofarm,

Well, there's the legal question of which body is required to authorize a war, and there's the practical question of who's responsible for the decision. To think that the Iraq War was Congres's doing is spectacularly ignorant (at best, "dishonest" at worst), and, frankly, suggests a cowardly attempt to run away from Bush's disastrous blunder and shift the blame to someone else.

Moreover, most anti-war folks do blame the Congressmen who voted for the war, at least for foolishly authorizing Dubya's Crusade. You're aware of that big issue that distinguishes Clinton and Obama, right?

Edit re: line-item veto: Well, if you amend the Constitution, it's not unconstitutional anymore. And it's never going to be a big enough issue to actually get an amendment.

Cleo

 

[Joe Harker]

Two, I think the only reason why he has stay in power is because of the a lack of a decent oppoisition that actually challenges him (see his first four years) The democrats are only coming back because they have finally realised, "hang on if we challenge this guy we might actually be able to bring him and more importantly now, his party down"

I have never really understood why America voted him in in the first place, surely you want someone that at least displays some intelligence and some common sense, at least! (having said that people are voting Boris Johnson in London, the worlds going mental!!!!!)

 

[Ecofarm]

Two, I think the only reason why he has stay in power is because of the a lack of a decent oppoisition that actually challenges him (see his first four years) The democrats are only coming back because they have finally realised, "hang on if we challenge this guy we might actually be able to bring him and more importantly now, his party down"

I have never really understood why America voted him in in the first place, surely you want someone that at least displays some intelligence and some common sense, at least! (having said that people are voting Boris Johnson in London, the worlds going mental!!!!!)

Democrats took control of congress in 2006, and promptly authorized the surge. Let me know when they try to "take him down"

 

[Joe Harker]

Democrats took control of congress in 2006, and promptly authorized the surge. Let me know when they try to "take him down"

Actually what i should have said is that they won the mid term elections by doing that and now, i think going to lose the presidency because they are getting too close again to the republicans.

 

[Lloyd_Bonafide]

I gave a 7 because I believe he is an honest man who is a victim of the particularly virulent strand of politics started during Clinton. He can do no right, as evidenced by the number of 1's given.

 

[History_Buff]

I gave him a 4. He's gotten involved in substantial conflicts without very much of a long term plan, so thats a hit. He's also done a bad job of managing the economy. Theism seems to be creeping back into American politics (or it always was there, or it's a general American thing, but the next few words still hold) which is about the worst thing possible, particularly since it has been at the expense of science and logic.

But at the same time, the war hasn't really touched American soil (9/11 aside), and this is hardly something America can't recover from if it wants too. Basically, A for effort, F-- for execution.

 

[Cutlass]

1) Congress approved military action. Call it a formality if you want, but I do not think the president tells congress what to do.

2) Congress funds the war. Bush does not control the appropriations committee.

Without funding, the war is over.

C'mon, DT. You're not that ignorant about US political procedures. I hardly think that you believe that Bush's advisors are the end-all-be-all of congressional law. They advised as they did because we are talking about ending a cease-fire, not declaring war. Is this technicality completely lost on you?

And you wonder where young people get the wrong idea that the president has the power to declare and continue wars? You're not helping. Set your Bush-bashing aside for a second and tell the truth.

That's not true if Bush continues to reject the Constitution. The threat is that he would spend money appropriated for other purposes. There's little Congress could do to stop that in the short run.

 

[Kennigit]

Voted a 3 for the Bush administration (important to recognize the screw ups of all his other peeps). It is potentially lower or higher (probably at most 5), because we haven't necessarily seen how things pan out and how much can be recovered. Right now US foreign policy sucks, but independent of Democrats or Republicans it can improve, etc. Also for example, Reagan's spendings still are being payed for today, but at the time people might have ranked him a 10 (and still do).

 

[emzie]

4. He could have screwed things up a lot worse than he actually did. Plus, he found a way to save John Ashcroft from being viewed as the worst Attorney General ever.

ahahaahaha

However much I dislike Ashcroft, he was at least principled enough to stand up to the White House (warrantless wiretapping) where Gonzales was a lap dog and will be remembered as an embarassment to an otherwise fine institution.

 

[Rossiya]

I prefer President Schafen rather than President Bush.

 

[Ecofarm]

That's not true if Bush continues to reject the Constitution. The threat is that he would spend money appropriated for other purposes. There's little Congress could do to stop that in the short run.

That's a load of crap. Congress could impeach and remove him that same day.

Stop the fearmongering and imaginary world arguments.

Only Congress can declare or fund war. Period.

Until that changes (in the real world), blame them.