The Boston Globe asked all the candidates a series of questions around their positions on the expanded power of the president as practiced by Bush...the use of wiretapping without a court warrant, use of force without specific Congressional authority, ignoring US treaty obligations on treatment and rights of prisoners, excessive use of signing statements, use of executive privilege when beyond private conversations between the Pres and staff.....
Romney made it clear in his responses that he will continue all of Bush's practices. Guilliani did not respond to the questions, but issued a statement through its spokesperson Ted Olsen (who was Bush's solicitor general and defending all of Bush's practices) so I think we know where Rudy stands. Huckabee refused to respond.
The leading Democrats were more circumspect in their responses and only the second tier Dems and Ron Paul answered in absolutes.
Quote:
Republican John McCain says that if he is elected president, he would consider himself bound to obey treaties because they are "the law of the land." But Mitt Romney says he would consider himself free to bypass treaties if they "impinge" on his powers as commander in chief.
Democrat Hillary Clinton says "in very rare instances," she might attach a so-called signing statement to a bill reserving a right to bypass "provisions that contradict the Constitution." But Bill Richardson says if a president thinks that parts of a bill are unconstitutional, then "he should veto it," not issue a signing statement.
These contrasts are found in the answers to a Globe survey of the presidential candidates about the limits of executive power. The study is the most comprehensive effort to date to get the candidates to declare in specific terms what checks and balances they would respect, and whether they would reverse the Bush administration's legacy of expanded presidential powers.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...full_spectrum/
|
Based on the responses of wannabee conservatives Romney and Guilliani pandering to the conservative base, I take back what I said about the incompatibility of excessive power v oath of office not being limited to conservatives. It could very well be an inherently Republican trait if the public chooses to let that happen.