Originally Posted by dc_dux

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 in the Constitution.

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:

Question for TFP politicos:
Do you want to see this Bush/Cheney "badge of honor" for the executive branch continue to cut-off the legs of the other two branches of government in future administrations?
(Ask yourself....Do you want Hillary to have the same power?....or Gulliani or Huckabee?)