Clinton on Executive Power

Hillary Clinton blasted the Bush administration's expansion of executive power today, offering general thoughts in a substantive interview with Michael Tomasky:

I think it is clear that the power grab undertaken by the Bush-Cheney administration has gone much further than any other president and has been sustained for longer. Other presidents, like Lincoln, have had to take on extraordinary powers but would later go to the Congress for either ratification or rejection. But when you take the view that they're not extraordinary powers, but they're inherent powers that reside in the office and therefore you have neither obligation to request permission nor to ask for ratification, we're in a new territory here. And I think that I'm gonna have to review everything they've done because I've been on the receiving end of that.

This is an important and informed critique of administration abuse. But Clinton's impressive historical grasp of the problem is still crabbed by her diplomatic knack for avoiding specifics. (To be fair, this applies to most candidates.) This is a long campaign, though, so here are some specific executive power questions for Clinton and all the other candidates. As President, will you:

- Halt the use of presidential signing statements that evade the legislative intent of Congress?

- Return to the more limited, pre-Bush use of the "state secrets privilege" in national security litigation?

- Issue a blanket executive order rescinding any grants of immunity to government officials and private citizens for illegal conduct? (This might also require a legislative fix, given the War Crimes Act and current spying legislation.)

- Establish a US-style "Truth Commission" to fully investigate allegations of US-sponsored rendition and torture of people like Canadian citizen Maher Arar and German citizen Khalid El-Masri?

Feel free to add more questions in the comments.

Comments (13)

1. Hope for the best in cutting back on the Executive Powers...even with an Obama or Edwards.

   As for "what has already happened"...wouldn't expect much from that. Whoever is elected (even Dem) is going say "Move On", and drop the whole thing.

   No further warrentless wire-taps...but immunity for the tele-coms.

   No further renditions....but no punishment for the past perps.

   And the Bush guys walk.

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2007 @ 2:44pm

2. The Clintons are geniuses of triangulation. They know what a listener wants to hear & are far more talented than many pols in delivering the desired goods convincingly. Mere talk, after all, is so cheap. Pin her down? Who dares & in what circumstances? For a large or a small audience? Count on HRC to handle it (unless her paranoia & contempt bubble up, uncontrollably). But don't count on HRC to deliver once in office. For the substance of that performance, look closely at what her Owners want. She longs to be Imperatrix, full stop. Whatever it takes, it takes. In that, she differs little from any of the other leading candidates, whose Owners (almost all the same) call the ultimate shots. There will be no meaningful differentiation between the 2 parties or among the candidates, not until TV political advertising & its astronomical costs are abolished, with free, strictly limited TV ads all that is allowed by the airwaves' owners, viz. We the People. Until that distant day, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.

   Posted by sloper at 10/23/2007 @ 2:55pm

3. Great post, Ari!

   I would like to hear all of the candidates answer those questions.

   Maybe The Nation should host a presidential debate?

   Posted by Metteyya at 10/23/2007 @ 7:25pm

4. Maybe The Nation should host a presidential debate?

   Posted by METTEYYA 10/23/2007 @ 7:25pm

   who do you think wouldn't show up?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2007 @ 10:18pm

5. ari, here's some simple questions:

   are you going to be nice?

   to whom?

   how?

   why?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2007 @ 10:20pm

6. The arrogance of this Administration begins with the use of the presidential veto. I support reforming the Constitution to make it 60%+ (instead of 66.7%) to make it reasonable - and not almost impossible - to override the presidential veto. Only that action would make Congress a lot more "respectable" in the view of the Executive power.

   Also, the next Congress should prepare a bill of law that would oblige the Supreme Court of Justice to review the appropriateness and constitutionality of those "presidential signing statements". That will mean an obligatory, automatic and expedite review of Executive actions (as typical example wiretapping, or a declaration of war which by law is a Congress attribution) because the Attorney General's office is now an appendix of the Executive.

   Both chambers of Congress should create legislative tools directed to lighten/diminish bureaucratic procedures that impede faster resolution of issues in Committees or others. Congress lacks expediency and so therefore acts when everything is said and done by the Executive.

   Congress should define more precisely with a law the role of the Vice-president which in this Administration has been in a "nebulae" between a "quasi President/semi-king" and a manager without the required supervision.

   Finally, about immunity, I believe that the people of the USA almost in unanimity don't want government officers be granted immunity of illegal acts committed. Presidential pardons should be limited to actions not directly related to the Executive office's business because in such case the President is both a pardoning judge and an interested party ( such as the recent pardon).

   I believe that progressively - in the last 50 years- Congress has lost substantial effective power to the Executive and the cited actions would contribute to better the image of Congress which is now so unpopular and inoperative.

   Posted by Frank42 at 10/23/2007 @ 10:59pm

7. Posted by ZERO 10/23/2007 @ 10:35pm

   yeah!

   and what about e-mails?

   are you gonna hide them?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2007 @ 11:37pm

8. Not a single president since the executive power grab started has acted to rescind presidential power. They rarely even talk about it. Some of them have chosen not to participate in it (I think). The owners want a king of the US for their very own to play with, and they've slowly been getting it over the decades. No President has ever acted so rashly as Bush/Cheney have either. So I would expect some minor concessions in the ways of giving up executive power in the beginning, followed by the continuation of the executive power creep. Remember, most of the executive power creep that's happened under Bush/Cheney largely goes right under the radar for most folks, including even a lot of us readers of the Nation, cause it remains hidden and no one on the hill with the know how to figure it out has the motivation or their just not telling the press. What's most important to remember about this, is that the owners don't want this stuff to go reported. Combined with the fact that poloticians seeking office do not create reasons to get themselves elected, but instead try to appeal to what the public wants they will not talk about any abuse of power that goes under the radar, and will not address it.

   Posted by shadow master at 10/24/2007 @ 02:31am

9. The Bush administration has seriously violated both the law and the spirit of our system and set of beliefs to be sure, but if ARI thinks the elitist Clinton would be much better, he's kidding himself. She'd be craftier about it, but not better.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/24/2007 @ 11:01am

10. See website: http://www.draftnader.org/

    'Dear Ralph Nader:

    We, the undersigned Green Party members, are urging you to run for President again with the Green Party of the United States (GPUS) in 2008.

    We expect that if you did so, you would do what you did in the Nader-LaDuke Presidential Campaign of 2000.

    • run on all available Green Party ballot lines • run on the Green Party's values • help raise money for the Green Party and local Green candidates in accord with Federal Election Commission laws • inspire the running of more local, state, Congressional, and Senatorial Green Party candidates • help organize to surpass the ballot access requirements and legal barriers in all states where applicable • further spread the Green Party agenda of peace, justice, democracy, and ecology throughout the United States and world

    Running with the Green Party in 2008 would allow your campaign to add its resources to the Green Party's resources and ballot lines, thus increasing the strength and attractiveness of the campaign and maximizing the mandate of votes against the corporate control agenda. A united campaign would also spare the Green Party the divisiveness and inefficiency of another split campaign.

    The U.S. is in a profound need of a progressive third party to take forth the people's agenda so betrayed by the worsening corporate parties. The Green Party needs a united and exciting national campaign in order to be able to fill that role.

    Please give our grassroots Greens, and us, the undersigned, the opportunity to support you and unite with your campaign should you seek the Green Party nomination for 2008.'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/24/2007 @ 11:48am

11. Rio-Do you have anything to back up your claim that Jefferson is suspected of treason?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 10/24/2007 @ 1:11pm

12. Lousyana!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/24/2007 @ 12:43pm

    i hope this wasn't intentional, RIO.

    i'm listening to Wade Frugé at this very moment, a gift from america to the world. native son of Tasso, La.

    ""When you get right down to it you couldn't get more old style than Wade Fruge. Born in 1916 in Tasso, Louisiana, Wade learned his tunes mostly from his grandfather Napolean 'Babe' Fruge."

    lousy |?louz?| adjective ( lousier , lousiest ) 1 informal very poor or bad; disgusting : the service is usually lousy | lousy weather. • ill; in poor physical condition : she felt lousy. 2 infested with lice. • [ predic. ] ( lousy with) informal teeming with (something regarded as bad or undesirable) : the town is lousy with tourists.

    careful on whom you trod.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2007 @ 1:20pm

13. How about supporting NO EARMARKS in Congress? ZERO! NONE! If it's important enough to pass in legislation, put it in legislative form and pass it, don't tag it on to an unrelated bill!

    Or if EARMARKS are to be allowed, then how about that they all have to be in a bill and the bill published, let's say a week BEFORE voting on it, to give the electorate, (bloggers!), a chance to identify what they support and don't support, so they can let their representatives know how they feel?

    As it is, there have been cases in the recent past where EARMARKS were appended AFTER the bill has already been approved! This only serves special interests and K-street lobbyists, not mere Citizens!

    Posted by dobedoinat at 10/24/2007 @ 2:30pm