A promise from Barack Obama:
If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.
Those that don’t pass muster will be overturned, he said.
(…)
“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama
Add ending the use of Presidential Signing Statements to the list and I would say that there’s at least one thing about a President Obama that I could support.
Would Obama be willing go all the way back and review other presidents’ Executive Orders or does his constitutionalism begin and end with George W. Bush?
That I don’t know.
Oh, c’mon, Doug! This is the typical far-Left effort to constitutionalize every policy preference. Hence, he’ll probably also strike the Beck Executive Order that forces unionized federal contractors to inform their employees about their rights to refrain from union membership and pay only reduced agency fees. Clearly constitutional; but a President Barack will claim it’s unconstitutional to muddy the waters.
And Kevin makes an excellent point. This is grandstanding, pure and simple.
James,
I said it’s a beginning, not the answer.
The Presidency has assumed powers far beyond those granted to it by Article II of the Constitution, largely through the use of things like Executive Orders and signing statements.
It time somebody started doing something about it.
I don’t know if I agree that “The Presidency has assumed powers far beyond those granted to it by Article II of the Constitution, largely through the use of things like Executive Orders and signing statements.” I suspect most of Obama’s complaints are about the conduct of foreign and military policy, which are largely the province of the Executive.
Far more egregious is the extent to which Congress, and the courts, have “assumed powers far beyond those granted … by … the Constitution.”
And if you think what Obama’s comment is a beginning to the fact that “The Presidency has assumed powers far beyond those granted to it by Article II of the Constitution, largely through the use of things like Executive Orders and signing statements,” or if you think that an Obama AG is going to do anything close to applying the Constitution to them, then I suspect that you drank your lunch.
This isn’t about “somebody start[ing to] do[] something about it”; this is about naked political posturing.
The Constitution has nothing to do with it.
James,
Pick up The Cult Of the Presidency and then tell me what you think.
I’m two chapters in and it’s not a pretty picture.
And I’d note that outside of being Commander in Chief, the President has no “foreign and military policy” authority under the Constitution. Congress has acquiesed in all of this, of course, by letting Presidents since Harry Truman take military actions they had no authority to conduct without a declaration of war.
And you may be right about Obama. I’m not going to vote for him or his Republican opponent, so I don’t care.
Doug,
Who’s the author? Haven’t seen or heard of it. Right now, I’m working on Justice Scalia’s book (for rather obvious reasons, see Locke v. Karass, No. 07-610, pending), and A Conservative History of the American Left, by Daniel J. Flynn. Quite heavy enough for now, thank you very much.
As for the President’s War Powers, I did my Honors Thesis in political science on the War Powers Resolution. Granted it was more than 20 years ago, and it was college work, but the President’s expansive powers in the use of military force (there is plenty of authority for its use without a declaration of war) is well-grounded in history and precedent pre-Truman, and is a discussion ill-suited for the blogosphere.
You make an interesting assertion that “the President has no ‘foreign and military policy authority under the Constitution,” however, since it is the President who conducts foreign policy as Chief Executive, and my recollection is that the Federalist Papers (don’t remember which ones, and my copy is in the office) make it quite clear that the direction and conduct of foreign policy is an executive power. If you believe that Congress has enumerated powers, and as a libertarian, I presume that you do, then the powers granted to Congress in that sphere are quire limited.
There is, of course, a large distinction between actions which are “unwise” and those which are “unconstitutional.” I get a sense that you’re blurring the distinction between the two.