The Blog Cenk Uygur: The White House Threatens to Ignore Congress The Huffington Post

This has been bouncing around in my brain for a while–the following seem to be common premises of contemporary thought on the “right”:

Premise #1: It is unpatriotic, if not outright treasonous, to impede the President’s ability to protect the nation in a time of war.
Premise #2: Criticism of the President impedes his ability to protect the nation.
Premise #3: The nation is currently in a state of war.
Conclusion: Criticism of the President in a time of war is unpatriotic, if not outright treasonous.

Now, I personally think all three premises are debatable, but for this little exercise, let’s take everything as true.

Let’s change it up a little:

Premise #1: It is unpatriotic, if not outright treasonous, to impede the President’s ability to protect the nation in a time of war.
Premise #2: Impeachment of the President impedes his ability to protect the nation.
Premise #3: The nation has been in a state of war with Al Qaeda since 1996.
Conclusion: Impeachment of the President in a time of war is unpatriotic, if not outright treasonous.

I still don’t agree with #1, #2 could be taken as a matter of common sense, and #3 is pretty much a matter of record. So see, Republicans are even less patriotic than Democrats! Or something like that.

So what’s my point? Hell if I know. I guess I just want to stop the name-calling that is still going on, even in 2007. Nobody did enough to prevent 9/11 or to deal with the aftermath, neither Clinton nor Bush, so let’s move on. The Bush administration keeps saying something to the effect that “9/11 changed everything,” but no one ever asks them to elaborate on that point. What exactly changed after 9/11, other than our smug sense of security, and how does it justify such radical changes in the balance of power between the branches of government? If the terrorists hate our freedoms, how does one justify radically changing the nature and applicability of those freedoms?

Since I already brought up Bill Clinton…in for a penny, in for a pound. So all you administration-supporting, Iraq-war-supporting folk out there, imagine all the acts taken to broaden executive authority in the wake of 9/11…taken to broaden executive authority in the wake of the 1998 embassy bombings.

Unitary executive with the authority to override acts of Congress…what if Bill Clinton did it?

Executive with the authority to intercept phone transmissions without any resort to FISA courts or other oversight…what if Bill Clinton did it?

Authority solely vested in the executive to determine who is and is not an enemy combatant…what if Bill Clinton did it?

Just a thought.

Seriously, though, ask yourself if, in 1998, you would have been okay with that.

I don’t think you would have.

So why is it okay now?

Please, tell me I’m wrong, then tell me why I’m wrong. Convince me. I dare you.

“When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., et al v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-38 (1952, J. Jackson, concurring)

From the Washington Post:

Thirty-one-year-old Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) is not a large man, standing perhaps 5 feet 3 inches tall in thick soles. But he packed a whole lot of chutzpah when he walked into the House TV gallery yesterday to demand that the new Democratic majority give the new Republican minority all the rights that Republicans had denied Democrats for years.

“The bill we offer today, the minority bill of rights, is crafted based on the exact text that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi submitted in 2004 to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert,” declared McHenry, with 10 Republican colleagues arrayed around him. “We’re submitting this minority bill of rights, which will ensure that all sides are protected, that fairness and openness is in fact granted by the new
majority.”

Omitted from McHenry’s plea for fairness was the fact that the GOP had ignored Pelosi’s 2004 request — while routinely engaging in the procedural maneuvers that her plan would have corrected. Was the gentleman from North Carolina asking Democrats to do as he says, not as he did?

“Look, I’m a junior member,” young McHenry protested. “I’m not beholden to what former congresses did.”

Anne Kornblut of the New York Times asked McHenry if his complaint might come across as whining.

“I’m not whining,” he whined.

You know, I have all kinds of doubts about what’s going to get accomplished in the new Congress, but this is just fun, really.

You know, I usually hold with the maxim that what’s reprehensible for the goose is reprehensible for the gander, but the whining coming out of right-wing circles about the new Democrat plan for the House, I must admit, makes me smile. See, now that the Dems are coming into power, all those poor downtrodden Repubs want us to know how poor and downtrodden they are. Oh, the horror! Hear the hew and cry! Mourn for the poor Republicans who must now endure what they dished out for so long! See, Repubs can say one thing and do another, but they can’t abide any slight deviation from the exact wording of whatever Nancy Pelosi originally said about whatever.

That said, I give the Democrats until February or so to do as many victory dances as they want, then they damn well better start getting something done. Of course, it would be easier for them to “get something done” if they do exactly what Bush tells them to do. Ah, to live in interesting times…