The Imperial Presidency
Tweet
In the conservative cult, dear leader can never be wrong. Even when the law and the facts say he is, he’s right. He is infallible
The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday heard testimony from Steven Bradbury, head of the Justice Department s office of legal counsel. When questioned by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on whether the President s interpretation of the Hamdan case was right or wrong, Bradbury replied, The President is always right.
29 Responses to “The Imperial Presidency”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Would this suffice as a Fruedian slip? Any cons wonder why we call them Bushbots.LMFAO:)
Another classic example of Frank’s “Christian” behavior.
I’d rather be a nut with nuts than be living in Bushbot perfectland as Bradbury appears to be.
Watch it Frank, someone may interpret that statment as an invitation to do the Senator harm (yes, I can make fun of Democrats, too). At least Leahy has nuts to kick.
But wait, forsooth, I am confuse-ed. I thought, as the wise and brilliant Mr. Ann Coulter has said, that its the Left that has that whole doctrine of infallibility thing…
Leahy is nuts!
And Frank doesn’t address the Bushbot culture that invades your party. And don’t speak of civilized discourse, when you are hardly civil.
Since few of the lefties have military or other service in government, they are probably not familiar with the somewhat joking manner in which senior folks are treated.
It is the sort of thing that someone on a ship would say “The captain is ALWAYS right” it is almost by defination. Same thing here, unless there is a specific reason for him to be wrong (in this case it really isn’t specified), his word is almost by defination law. Now he can’t completely override congress or the supremes directly, but certainly where there is no countervening authority, he is, by defination, “right” about policy matters.
Sort of like the whole “the president leaked something” meme. It isn’t possible, since the president, by definition, can classify and declassify things on a whim.
First off, the president is not always right. That’s just dumb to say so. As Richard Nixon can tell you, the president is not above the law.
Secondly, it is a leak if the president orders an underling to link classified data. It’s also pretty immoral if the declassification of classified material happens on a whim simply for politicial vengeance.
I didn’t say he is always right. I said in matters of policy, that is not superseded by other law, by definition he is right. He can make laws via presidential fiat. It is different.
The president can declassify whatever he wants for whatever reason he chooses….regardless of your delicate feelings oliver.
So Pedro… which is it? He was joking? Or as in your example of the memo, he really can’t do anything wrong?
Actually, the whole infallability thing is more than a little creepy. The President is responsible for administration, and he is limited by both the Constitution (as interpreted by the Courts) and the Congress (as expressed in the laws it has passed). He does not have the power of the purse, he cannot make laws, and he cannot substitute his judgement for that of the courts in matters of law or criminality. You wouldn’t know that from the behavior of the G. W. Bush administration, but the latest from the Supreme Court shows that a majority of the justices were paying attention during that part of our civics classes, and with most of us pitching in on this election season, we may soon get a Congress who remembers that lesson too. It can’t happen soon enough.
I’m sorry Pedro did you just write that the President can make laws via presidential fiat? Tell me that’s a mistake.
Sorry frame, I forgot you went to USC….
It is called an “Executive Order” and the president gets to make them….in other words, presidential fiat….
Gee, Salmo, thanks for the Civics lesson.
Mr Bradbury is a lawyer.
Do you think he sat thorugh Sister Mary Elephant’s current events class in eighth grade, too?
Man, you’re an idiot. You do know that an executive order – even one written by a Republican – is still subject to a law. I’m sure you do, but as usual you’re being stupid on purpose.
I’m sorry pedro, but you did not say just that. You went on to say:
“He can make laws via presidential fiat.”
The president has no authority to “make laws” whether by fiat or otherwise. Now do you want to retract the above statement now or do you want to spend 100 more posts trying to convinnce us that you what you wrote doesn’t mean what it says?
Here’s a good definition of what an Executive Order is: “Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#execord
Congress has to grant the authority to the President first, hence it isn’t by “presidential fiat.”
Courtesy of Think Progress
Where’s the joke here? Must be my lack of military cojones, ’cause I don’t see the gag.
The Hamdan case doesn’t deal with whether or not we are, in fact, in a war in any legal sense at all, nor does it rule on whether Guantanamo should be closed. The case soley concerned itself with determining whether, even if we proceed from the assumption that our conflict with al-Qaeda can be termed a “war,” the President has the authority to subvert Congress, the UCMJ, and the Geneva Conventions and establish secret military tribunals.
Now Bush seems to be declaring that the Court has upheld his position on Guantanamo, though in fact it hasn’t, it has only determined that he cannot circumvent Congress at will. Executive orders be damned, I guess. More to the point, while I can see Bradbury taking the position that, barring specific legal evidence otherwise, “the President is always right,” he is still willfully ignoring his role as a member of the Justice Dept. to reign in the President when he strays from established law. The fact that he defers to the President when it really should be the other way around (at least on legal matters) is profoundly typical of the Imperial Presidency mindset.
Oh, and Bush still can’t declassify/classify anything at will (particularly anything protected by statute), so Pedro, you’re still wrong, but high fives for continuing to catapult the propaganda, even if it is into a brick wall.
Pedro, Frank and their ilk remind me of baseball MVP candidates who play for losing teams: They’re free to swing from the heels, irrespective of how it turns out.
Like Branch Rickey said to Ralph Kiner, “we could finish last without you.” The GOP can lose the battle of ideas without out Pedro and Frank, but having them in the game makes it that much more fun to watch.
Paul I am not going to watch you get apoplectic about whether an executive order is a law or not. It looks like a law, it acts like a law, it modifies other laws…..i.e.: Its a law. You want to call it a “duck”, fine.
The joke is, when you ask someone whether their “boss” is right, you responds, somewhat ironically, “he is always right”. Same goes when discussing your spouse….for you married folk out there.
The guy was getting pounded by another leftist with a mic, and I think he was trying to lighten things up a little.
You people continue to have a hard time with “context”. Come one, remember J. Kerry? It is all about the “nuance”….
“It looks like a law, it acts like a law, it modifies other laws& ..i.e.: Its a law. You want to call it a duck , fine.”
Jesus, you guys really did sleep through social studies. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The President does not have the power to make laws. An executive order is not a law. It’s an executive order, pedro, it looks like one and it acts like one. And you think we have a hard time with context, try reading the Constitution. You’ll sound like less of an idiot. I swear.
I have to wonder how DrPedro continues to be a Republican supporter since he values military service so highly.
pedro, there are far more democrats with military service than republicans, and you know that. Or at least you should, because I’ve reminded you of it several times.
Link is here. Again.
Jamey: The Republicans will never lose the battle of ideas, as long as the Democratics are missing that key element: Ideas…
Come on, frame, that’s the Old America. That paradigm has obviously played out. Welcome to USA 2.0; The New American Empire.
Constittution? Rule of Law? That is sooo 1860.
“Emperor Palpatine, a Mr. Vader on line 1.”
/sarcasm
“The Republicans will never lose the battle of ideas …”
Never lose the battle of ideas? Are you kidding? You guys don’t even know the most basic facts about our system of government. You, Frank, think that the Founding Fathers created a hierarchy of power among the three branches of government — as opposed to the system of checks and balances they actually put in place — while pedro thinks that the President can enact laws by executive fiat. Do you guys even know what country you live in? Let me help: It’s called A-M-E-R-I-C-A. It was founded on a little thing we like to call the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N. Ever heard of it? Doesn’t sound like it.
thanks for the useless link wolf. someone cherry picking names ain’t really “proof”.
Look up the percentage of the military that are republican voters. The Navy Times did a survey a few years back, it ran well over 60%, and was actually closer to 70%.
It s called A-M-E-R-I-C-A. It was founded on a little thing we like to call the C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N. Ever heard of it?
Wow — so clever.
I heard of it before your sociopathic ass was a gleam in your father’s eye, asshole.
Now, run back to you NYT CyberNavigator for a 1,000 word post.
“I heard of it before…”
Ya, now try reading it.