I dont think its necessarily a "conservative" v oath of office issue.
It is a Bush v oath of office issue and the danger that it may set a precedent of expanded presidential powers in a manner that many Constitutional scholars believe was not envisioned.
Bush has operated under a policy, based on some nebulous interpretation by Ashcroft and Gonzales, that Article II of the Constitution gives the President the authority to determine the powers of the President under Article II....sorta like "I get to determine what my own powers are."
"they promoted an overall view of executive power that a president should be able to interpret the Constitution independently — and direct the activities of the executive branch without interference from Congress."
More from a recent article in Congressional Quarterly....Bush's policy/practices and the serious question if the current crop of candidates may continue this shift away from the system of checks of balances:
Quote:
For the past seven years, George W. Bush has expanded presidential power in ways that no one could have predicted when he took office.
He and Vice President Dick Cheney have worn their independence — from oversight by either lawmakers or judges — as a badge of honor, necessary to keep the nation safe from another terrorist attack and restore what they have regarded as a weakened presidency. But the cost has been a poisonous friction with Congress and a growing public perception that they simply weren’t interested in checks and balances.
Bush administration officials launched a secret warrantless surveillance program that operated outside the federal law that governs spying programs. They refused to ask Congress to authorize military commissions to try suspected terrorists, although the Supreme Court later forced them to do so. They declared that the president alone could decide how to detain suspected terrorists and which interrogation techniques to use.
They decided that the president alone could pull the United States out of treaties such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Bush renounced in 2001. They maintained that administration officials don’t necessarily have to testify in an investigation just because Congress subpoenas them, a view that has driven Democrats in the House and Senate to launch contempt proceedings against officials who defied them in their probe of the firings of U.S. attorneys.
And they promoted an overall view of executive power that a president should be able to interpret the Constitution independently — and direct the activities of the executive branch without interference from Congress.
So members of Congress and constitutional experts had been looking for signs that the 2008 campaign would be the start of a backlash — with a varied group of presidential candidates from both parties who might scale back executive power and welcome, or at least tolerate, congressional oversight. “The lesson I hope the candidates have learned is, your power is enhanced when you work with the Congress,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “You’re more likely to be upheld by the courts. and you’re more likely to get things done.”
However, the records and statements of the eight major candidates — the three Democrats and five Republicans who have had double-digit support in the most recent national polls — show that the 2008 presidential election is not likely to start a huge shift in the balance of power away from the White House.
That doesn’t mean the top candidates would continue all of the Bush administration’s practices, and most aren’t likely to take the same kind of deliberately confrontational approach to Congress. Also, an upset victory could still go to one of the few candidates whose victory would represent a clear rejection of Bush’s overall policies. But there is enough evidence of a preference for strong executive power in the backgrounds of most of the field to suggest that, more likely than not, there will be no U-turn under the next president.
full article:
http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?do...t-000002643955
|
Question for TFP politicos:
Do you want to see future administrations continue to wear this Bush/Cheney "badge of honor" of expanded presidential powers at the expense of cutting off the legs of the other two branches of government?
(Ask yourself....Do you want Hillary to have the same power?....or Gulliani or Huckabee?)