Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I respect the fact that a President has to make tough decisions under tough circumstances. Presidents will make mistakes. I have no problem with any President making a mistake when they are acting in the best interest of the country.
|
The issue is not a president making mistakes...it is a president willfully and unilaterally determining his/her own executive powers without consulting, or even informing, the other co-equal branches of government.
I'm having a hard time understanding your position. You say you dont agree with the Gonzales principle (a president can determine his own Constitutional powers), but based on your previous statements, it appears you support a president acting outside the law or taking action based on his/her own interpretation of the Constitution (eg warrantless wiretaps) if he/she believes it is in the best interest of the country.
I dont.
Quote:
|
... However, my original point is that you really won't find much difference in her approach to the Executive office and Executive power than Bush.
|
Of course, you have nothing to support this statement, other than personal opinion and, based on many of her votes, the opposite is closer to the truth.
In fact, if you take her at her word (I know thats hard to do regarding any of the candidates), she has clearly stated that she would not follow the Bush approach to executive power in several key areas:
Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
No. The President is not above the law.
Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
I have opposed the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements, and as President, I would not use signing statements to disagree on policy grounds with legislation passed by Congress or as an end run around the veto. I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.
Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No.
Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
Under our Constitution, they also are the law of the land, and the President has the same duty to comply with them as with any other valid law.
Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress's prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration's view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.
And other questions on which she agrees.....Boston Globe survey
But then again, as someone noted.....power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely....so there is no telling what she might do if elected.
And my concern is that the Bush precedent of determining his own Constitutional powers leaves the door wide open for similar excesses by any future president.