[kidwoo]

While I still keep up on this in preparation for the marriage I force on some unexpecting canadian nubile in the near future, it's still annoying and the dog eared pages in my copy of 1984 I keep in my back pocket make it twice the thickness making sitting down difficult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

Almost as interesting is one of the comments on the page where I found this link.

Watching this administrations behavior; the power-grabs, the massive expansion of the Executive branch, etc. All of these things are antithetical to the core tenants of the Republican party.
I have a different theory. They are acting as spoilers. They went in, with the intent of making things as bad as possible in the most vulgar and public way. They break the law, they don't hide it, and they never apologize. They drain the federal reserves and attach us to a conflict guaranteed to keep it empty; much of this money goes into their own pockets (natch).
And right before they leave office, they go so far overboard that Congress is forced to react. To set the pendulum swinging the other way...
An angry nation demands change, they force the government back into a smaller roll, they strip the power of the executive and they do all of this when the Democrats are in office.
At the end of the day, the nation has a much smaller governement, the Republicans have a ****load of money, and the elected Democratic administration has been rendered completely toothless.
Which, as a long term goal, is more or less exactly what the Republican party from 1999 would want.
Now, the only real question is, are these people that clever? Are they that Machiavellian? And even if this wasn't the plan, how un-****ing-cool is it that there is a good chance that this is the way it could unfold?

http://www.metafilter.com/63096/Guevara-With-a-Sweet-Southern-Tan

 

[Secret Squirrel]

w0w...

I had been thinking (read: random synapses) about bits and pieces of that last little blurb you posted...but I hadn't linked all of it together until now...


Machiavelli indeed.

 

[JohnE]

Simply put, the GOP is setting the Democrats up for failure, after which they will sweep to power again. Brilliant in a really sick, twisted way. It will take Rush Limbaugh about 10 minutes (Afte the inauguration) to start bitching about the big hole the Dems have dug.

I am moving to Burundi...

 

[manimal]

wow...if that turns out to be what happens than it is brilliant, in a really sick sort of way...but still brilliant.

 

[MikeD]

Nah, it's the 'neo' in neoconservative that's causing the break with traditional conservative values. (perhaps they know kung-fu?)

They're big business types...lots of big business types esteem will and executive power over all other attributes, and bring a culture of personal loyalty/influence and sycophancy and secrecy and risk-taking with other people's assets while sheltering their own. That's what got us started down this road. Enron in the white house.

And our democracy just doesn't allow for continuous long-range planning like this guy imagines. Sometimes that's a disadvantage...something we suffer from compared to, say, Al-Quaeda. But we can't get things right over the course of 4-8 years. And if you sow the seeds of weakening the gov't, you'll reap them when you're back in power. Always one step behind.

The only thing relatively Machiavellian was the selling of this war to the public. I don't think anything beyond that can be taken as evidence of some underlying, long-term, transformational plan.

 

[MikeD]

Simply put, the GOP is setting the Democrats up for failure, after which they will sweep to power again. Brilliant in a really sick, twisted way. It will take Rush Limbaugh about 10 minutes (Afte the inauguration) to start bitching about the big hole the Dems have dug.

Well, this is why I wasn't disappointed when Bush was re-elected. If he had been, the situation would be as bad or worse, and he'd be seen in revision as some kind of saint, and his policies as misunderstood, setting the stage for an even bigger swing after 4 years of the dems in charge.

Now, I'm positive the democrats will **** up the political opportunity presented them by having an incumbent party with 29% approval ratings on their chief executive, but still, they're better off politically than if they were faced with taking over four years ago.

 

[$tinkle]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html?1

you should peruse their press releases. interesting stuff like this comes up. i have the feeling they don't care so much about hezbollah's various propaganda websites being hosted by u.s. companies, but it's a start. i'm sure there's an amendment or two being re-interpreted as we speak.

 

[MikeD]

Is there any judicial review implicit in unilateral executive-branch action like this, or is it a matter of a person bringing suit against the executive branch if they feel the blocking actions have affected them unjustly?

 

[luelling]

Simply put, the GOP is setting the Democrats up for failure, after which they will sweep to power again. Brilliant in a really sick, twisted way. It will take Rush Limbaugh about 10 minutes (Afte the inauguration) to start bitching about the big hole the Dems have dug.

I totally agree. They blame all problems on the Demoratically led Congress (even though they don't have enough votes to override a Veto). The Dems look bad becuase they are in power, and in a lot of peoples mind, not doing anything.

 

[$tinkle]

gettin wiki with it

Executive power is vested in the President. The principal responsibility of the President is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." By using these words, the Constitution does not require the President to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the President may perform such duties. It has been held that the Constitution, by empowering him to ensure the faithful execution of laws, permits the President to terminate the appointment of an executive officer. Congress may not itself terminate such appointments, except by impeachment, or restrict the President's power to do the same. Nevertheless, the President's control does not extend to non-executive agencies. It was held that bodies such as the War Claims Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative entities—were not subject to the President's whims.

Congress may not unilaterally restrain executive officials in the performance of their duties. In INS v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court struck down a law which authorized either House of Congress to veto an executive decision made by the Attorney General. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot veto executive rulings. Nevertheless, legislation may prescribe regulations governing executive officers. Legislation differs from a unilateral congressional veto in that the latter is not presented to the President for his approval

uppity bush