Executive Power, Hillary Clinton and the Congress

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 02:32:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

Mark Schmitt points out a serious concern about Hillary Clinton's views on executive power:

I was . . . alarmed by the following passages:
Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president - her ’responsibility gene,’ she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority....
. . . [W]e have just gone through a period of the most staggering expansion of executive power in history, and I suspect that we don’t know the half of it. The setup that was the Iraq resolution, the manipulation of the executive branch itself in order to deceive Congress was one example of it. . . . The last thing we need at this moment is yet another president who "believes in executive authority and Congressional deference." We need a president who respects separation of powers and democracy. After all, the next president will not be our last.

I agree with Mark's concern but it requires a Congress willing to stymie Executive Power to check abuse of power by a President. A President Hillary Clinton asserting strong Executive Power is a concern of course. But Thomas Jefferson disclaimed any number of federal powers that he then used when President.

More....

Senator Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Congress ACQUIESCING to the abuse of Executive power is the real threat. In Federalist 51, Madison wrote:

[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. . . .

We must look to the Congress to check the Executive, not our Presidential candidates.

< Sunday Reading | The Worst Argument for Libby's Acquittal >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Executive Power, Hillary Clinton and the Congress | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's simpler than that, I think (none / 0) (#1)
by Al on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 02:46:39 PM EST

Sounds to me like a rationalization for not admitting that voting for the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Her "responsibility gene" is apparently not strong enough for her to take responsibility for past mistakes.

Bush era thinking (none / 0) (#2)
by koshembos on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 03:38:08 PM EST

There is a point to be alarmed only if from now on all presidents will be as incompetent, brutal and undemocratic as Bush. Instead of viewing presidential authority extrapolated from Bush is might pay to ignore Bush and see the president in the line of Clinton, Bush the Elder and even Reagan.

What did you expect? (none / 0) (#3)
by roy on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 03:48:06 PM EST

Hillary's political career reeks of lust for power. Carpet bagging to run as a "New Yorker", supporting flag-burning penalties, supporting the war when it was popular and opposing it when it's not, trying to censor video games, marketing herself as a centrist...

It's clear that her top goal is to increase her own power, at the expense of our rights when convenient. Why would that stop if she becomes President?

Definitely not Bill (none / 0) (#4)
by plumberboy on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 05:16:57 PM EST

She,s no Bill even though he had unpopular personal habits ,he was good.I personally never cared for Hilliary even when she was 1st lady but Bill was a president who new his way around and could get things in order.The thought of some people is a vote for Hilliary is a vote to re-elect Bill not the case at all,those years are gone forever.Hilliary is a totally didn't politician than her husband a little scary, my favorite is still Obama.

what's the matter boys, the thought (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 05:37:41 PM EST

of a woman occupying the oval office making you wet your pants? geez, get a grip. when last i checked, pretty much any politician, male or female, could easily be accused of "lusting after power", so what makes hillary worse than the rest?

at least she's a whole lot smarter than pretty much the rest of the pack, dem & repub, currently announced as running.

as far as the classic "carpetbagger" allegation goes, no one in ny was forced to vote for her. and yet, they did. not once, but twice. they must have liked the cut of her bag.

actually, it is the job of both congress and the judiciary to reign in an overreaching chief executive, that's kind of why the author's set up three, co-equal branches.

granted, there's always the possibility that all three can be corrupted simultaneously, but that hasn't happened in over 200 years, so i'm not going to worry about it too much.

: Your comment (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:02:17 PM EST

is not relevant to my post.

[ Parent ]

Come on Big Tent (none / 0) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:01:59 PM EST

It's pretty much a given that she's gonna pick your man Obama as VP, so why all the attacks??

: more politcal advice ... (none / 0) (#9)
by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:06:36 PM EST

... from a commenter who is among the 29% of folks who think bush is doing a good job.

It's pretty much a given that she's gonna pick your man Obama as VP, so why all the attacks??
Got links?
Or is this commenter just lying again!?

[ Parent ]

Can we call her Senator Clintion instead of (none / 0) (#8)
by patchwork2 on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:05:34 PM EST

"Hillary"? Hillary is my next door neighbor willing to help me when she can--Senator Clinton is a woman with responsibilities toward those she represents and toward the Constitution of the United States of America. She is not my next door neighbor and I refuse to refer to her as "Hillary", the good old guy/gal you would like to have a beer with, or a cuppa tea--you know?

Having said that--she is smart alright. Smart enough to play both sides of the slaughter house known as the war in Iraq--actually it was an invasion that she voted for and now tries to reverse her ill fated vote. Like we are gonna forgedda bout it and vote for her--and lots will, in spite of their gut reaction to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in our name.

Why? Because there lies the fault in our system. Our two party system. Either you vote for the Republican, or you vote for the Democrat, no matter how hard you have to hold your nose. Did not work in the last presidential election, where many could not stomach Kerry and his vote on the war, but voted AAB.

Not gonna do it again. I will write in my choice rather than hold my nose. I am smothering from holding my nose and wasting my precious vote on another loser just so the Republican will not get into office. I am FORCED to vote for anyone who spins, flip flops, obfuscates, refuses to address the issues, comes round again when the climate is ripe and changes her position--and to top it all off, refuses to adopt a reasonable, humble attitude, and admit she erred when she voted for this slaughterhouse in Iraq. In fact, she is adopted the Bush approach--in your face, you anti-war fringe people--vote for someone else, I will not apologize for my vote--

Well tell that to any mother in Iraq who sent their child out to the market, or who was sleeping when the great bombs of the conquorer, the great CIC comparable to Harry Truman who ordered to drop a holocaustic bomb on Japan

She is NOT my idea of what I want for my president.

: oh please, spare me the (none / 0) (#13)
by cpinva on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 01:26:28 AM EST

"holier than thou" nonsense. sen. clinton, like the rest of us, was bs'd by the administration on iraq. why should she apologize for a vote she made under false pretenses? all this preening and whining is just more MSM and republican nonsense.
frankly, if john edwards wants to apologize, that's his prerogative, but it wasn't necessary and, honestly, sounds weenyish.
let's see if i have this logic straight:
i accept the word of a person who is reasonably assumed to be in possession of more data than i on an issue. as a consequence, i act accordingly. it turns out that i was lied to, with adverse results for everyone. i'm not the one who should be apologizing, the person who lied to me should. they are ultimately responsible for those adverse consequences. i was but a pawn in their plan.
this whole "sen. clinton should apologize" idiocy is just that, idiocy. she's already stated her position, take it or leave it. obviously it was a mistake, but one made in good faith, which is more than can be said of the president.
BTD, who the heck are you talking to, could you be a tad more specific?

[ Parent ]

Senator Clinton, would be no more extreme in her (none / 0) (#10)
by kindness on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 09:31:19 PM EST

use of Executive privledge than her husband Bill did. Hillary isn't my first choice, but I will support her if it was her against any of the repubs I see in the field today

To suggest she would rise to being anywhere close to the likes of bush43's ideas of Executive power & privledge is simply a stretch in my mind.

PS- I'll bet it'll be Edwards or Clark she'd want for VP.

Overblown executive power is the problem (none / 0) (#11)
by janinsanfran on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 10:00:59 PM EST

Realistically, any of the Presidential contenders will try to hang on to the powers Bush/etc. have arrogated to the executive. The problem is structural. Congress and the judiciary won't limit a popular president and it would take complete presidential loss of authority to roll back the accretions of the imperial American state over the last 60 years.

Clinton is a lot like my esteemed Senator Diane Feinstein. They believe in government, as long as they are government. They think the people exist to be led around by the nose. Their instincts are far more benevolent than some, but their elitism is absolute.

That bit in the NYT about Clinton was clear and telling.

mind her psychology (none / 0) (#14)
by tinymaha on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:56:54 AM EST

Some psychologists have profiled Pres. Bush, and if the same was done with Mrs. Clinton, it would show how she is compensating some inner neurosis with an unsatiable need for power. Just watch her facial expression, she needs the presidency for her own sake, for her ego.
The problem with executive power is structural, and for a very good history lesson, go to google video "Why we fight" at the following link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026&q=why+we+fight&hl=en