Arguing for enhanced powers of presidency
By Peter Canellos, Globe Staff | December 18, 2005
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's radio address yesterday was an eight-minute bullet of a speech aimed at his growing number of congressional critics, who have turned on the president in a dramatic set of rebukes over torture policy, the Patriot Act, and his authorization of spying on Americans.
The speech stands as one of Bush's most forceful statements, a manifesto calling for enhanced executive power to protect the United States from terrorist plots.
But its unsparing language also reflects an urgency bordering on desperation over the extent to which a Congress dominated by his own party has deserted him on his strongest issue -- fighting the war on terrorism.
Bush declared that the Senate's vote on Friday to block renewal of the Patriot Act ''is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. . . . In the war on terror, we cannot be without this law for a single moment."
The Senate's rejection of Bush's request for renewal of the Patriot Act followed lengthy but fruitless negotiations with the administration to include more judicial scrutiny of searches of US citizens.
In the past, Bush has been able to count on a rock-solid Republican majority in both chambers to support his most important initiatives, along with sizable numbers of moderate Democrats.
But on both the Patriot Act and on a measure sponsored by Senator John McCain to ban abusive interrogations of prisoners, the president called his congressional soldiers into action -- and many of them failed to respond.
Scores of Republicans defected on the torture amendment, and four GOP mavericks joined a solid bloc of Democrats to tie up the Patriot Act.
The lawmakers' decisions seemed motivated by more than the usual political considerations: Many Republicans said an unambiguous statement on torture was needed to restore the nation's prestige abroad; and senators of both parties expressed concerns about concentrating too much power in the executive branch.
Then came The New York Times report Friday that said Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept overseas phone calls and e-mails from people in the United States.
Bush's actions, which he maintains are justified under his powers as commander in chief, nonetheless violated a 1978 act of Congress and set the stage for a full-scale power struggle between the executive and legislative branches.
Bush's radio speech yesterday was his first public pushback in that struggle.
Throughout American history, emergencies have led presidents to claim enhanced powers. But Congress has always moved aggressively to rein in presidential powers after the immediate crisis has passed.
Abraham Lincoln ruled as a virtual dictator for much of the Civil War.
But immediately afterward, the Republican Congress grabbed control of Reconstruction and impeached a president of its own party, Andrew Johnson, when he tried to intervene.Continued...
Woodrow Wilson took on greater power both domestically and overseas during World War I, but Congress reasserted itself dramatically to thwart Wilson's postwar plans for a League of Nations.
Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the scope of executive power to combat the Depression, only to have many of his plans rejected in his second term by a Congress of his own party.
After the Vietnam War, Congress helped drive Richard Nixon from office in the Watergate scandal and spent the rest of the 1970s enacting laws designed to curb executive powers.
One of those post-Watergate laws said the executive branch couldn't spy on US citizens without a warrant.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to do just that.
White House lawyers asserted that Bush had such power under the Constitution during a national security emergency.
In his speech yesterday, the president explained his rationale for such powers: ''This authorization is a vital tool in our war against terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them."
If Bush can convince the public that such powers are necessary, Congress may back off.
But the votes of the past week illustrate just how much power in both chambers has shifted away from the White House's allies.
The Republican majority in the House, which marched almost in lock step with former majority leader Tom DeLay, has been slowly unraveling since DeLay stepped aside to fight an ethics indictment. Still, House rules give the leadership team the power to control the agenda, and the team remains mostly loyal to Bush.
The Senate is much harder to control. Democrats have been far more disciplined in their opposition to Bush under their new leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
Unable to count on any Democratic votes, Bush has been forced to rely on the 55 -- out of 100 -- Republicans.
But Republicans lack the required number of votes -- 60 -- to choke off a filibuster, giving Democrats the power to block important bills.
Moreover, increasing numbers of GOP senators have taken stances against the administration.
They include McCain, who promoted the torture amendment; Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, both of whom led opposition to the Patriot Act extension; and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee chairman who condemned Bush's approval of domestic spying and vowed to hold hearings into the administration's actions.
These Republicans, along with a half-dozen others like them, seem to hold the balance of power in Bush's Washington.
The key to the next round of struggles between Congress and the president, most likely to play out as the Patriot Act gets closer to expiring on Jan. 1, will be how those lawmakers define their responsibilities -- as senators upholding the power of their chamber, or as Republicans upholding the powers of their president.
Woodrow Wilson took on greater power both domestically and overseas during World War I, but Congress reasserted itself dramatically to thwart Wilson's postwar plans for a League of Nations.
Article Tools
Printer friendly
Single page
E-mail to a friend
Nation RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints/permissions
More:
Globe Nation stories |
Latest national news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the scope of executive power to combat the Depression, only to have many of his plans rejected in his second term by a Congress of his own party.
After the Vietnam War, Congress helped drive Richard Nixon from office in the Watergate scandal and spent the rest of the 1970s enacting laws designed to curb executive powers.
One of those post-Watergate laws said the executive branch couldn't spy on US citizens without a warrant.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to do just that.
White House lawyers asserted that Bush had such power under the Constitution during a national security emergency.
In his speech yesterday, the president explained his rationale for such powers: ''This authorization is a vital tool in our war against terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them."
If Bush can convince the public that such powers are necessary, Congress may back off.
But the votes of the past week illustrate just how much power in both chambers has shifted away from the White House's allies.
The Republican majority in the House, which marched almost in lock step with former majority leader Tom DeLay, has been slowly unraveling since DeLay stepped aside to fight an ethics indictment. Still, House rules give the leadership team the power to control the agenda, and the team remains mostly loyal to Bush.
The Senate is much harder to control. Democrats have been far more disciplined in their opposition to Bush under their new leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
Unable to count on any Democratic votes, Bush has been forced to rely on the 55 -- out of 100 -- Republicans.
But Republicans lack the required number of votes -- 60 -- to choke off a filibuster, giving Democrats the power to block important bills.
Moreover, increasing numbers of GOP senators have taken stances against the administration.
They include McCain, who promoted the torture amendment; Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, both of whom led opposition to the Patriot Act extension; and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee chairman who condemned Bush's approval of domestic spying and vowed to hold hearings into the administration's actions.
These Republicans, along with a half-dozen others like them, seem to hold the balance of power in Bush's Washington.
The key to the next round of struggles between Congress and the president, most likely to play out as the Patriot Act gets closer to expiring on Jan. 1, will be how those lawmakers define their responsibilities -- as senators upholding the power of their chamber, or as Republicans upholding the powers of their president.
boston.com |
