At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
I take some comfort in the fact that despite the most determined effort in US history to expand the powers of the Presidency beyond anything envisioned by the writers of the Constitution, the momentum now seems to be in the other direction. The scary thing is that the effort probably would have succeeded if it's promoters hadn't been so arrogant and contemptuous of the the other branches of government and public opinion.
Goldsmith says he remains convinced of the seriousness of the terrorist threat and the need to take aggressive action to combat it, but he believes, quoting his conservative Harvard Law colleague Charles Fried, that the Bush administration “badly overplayed a winning hand.” In retrospect, Goldsmith told me, Bush “could have achieved all that he wanted to achieve, and put it on a firmer foundation, if he had been willing to reach out to other institutions of government.” Instead, Goldsmith said, he weakened the presidency he was so determined to strengthen. “I don’t think any president in the near future can have the same attitude toward executive power, because the other institutions of government won’t allow it,” he said softly. “The Bush administration has borrowed its power against future presidents.”
Well this is one criticism of a President that I didn't vote for either election. I thought our presence in Afghanistan was justified. Although we still haven't found OBL. The troop movement extended to Iraq has proven a big mess. When we finally did bring Saddam to account for his injustices, I would had gladly said good-bye then. I think Bush has not only overplayed his authority in retrospect starting with the fallout of 9/11, but has bitten off more than he could ever chew. His unwillingness to reach out to other institutions of government just reflects that Bush will go down in history as one the poorest diplomatic presidents in recent past, foreign and domestically.
I think that your original idea is incorrect. There has been a steady increase in the powers of the Presidency in the last half of the 20th Century, and there is NO INDICATION that this trend is reversing as we speak, quite the opposite!
The Presidency is **incredibly powerful**.
Talk/rumor is even that Bush is going to order an attack on Iran soon. I don't think he will go to Congress and ask them to *vote* on this!!
I'll read "The Terror Presidency...." as a counter point to John Yoo's "War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror" . Goldsmith clearly had a difference of opinion with Yoo . Anyway Goldsmith's book is bound to be a best seller if for nothing else ,it's description of to goings on in John Ashcroft's hospital room.
I take some comfort in the fact that despite the most determined effort in US history to expand the powers of the Presidency beyond anything envisioned by the writers of the Constitution, the momentum now seems to be in the other direction. The scary thing is that the effort probably would have succeeded if it's promoters hadn't been so arrogant and contemptuous of the the other branches of government and public opinion.
Frankly there has been no “expansive view of executive power” as Mr. Goldsmith’s "wifty" words like “justifying torture” conjures up. Mr. Goldsmith’s lies like a rug on a cheap linoleum floor; because he is not looking at history in the frame of wartime. Bush, as a of matter has utilized his wartime powers to a lesser extent than previous wartime Presidents have. I would think Mr. Goldsmith is an Idealist who has caught the "mountain crud"- except for the fact he is writing a whole book to say he disagreed with the policy; sounds like he is peeing down our back and trying to convince us it's raining.
Linear Mode
