Not So Imperial

I enjoy Steve Chapman, he's a good conservative (some would say libertarian) writer who isn't afraid to tangle with both Democrats and Republicans. I might be a libertarian myself if it weren't for my hawkish views on foreign policy. Chapman recently wrote about the expanding powers of the Presidency and his concern that Bush and those who will follow him show little sign of relinquishing those powers:

Imperial presidency may be here to stay

He acknowledges that Bush isn't the first President to push the envelope, citing Bill Clinton as an example from across the aisle. Surely, though, Chapman must know that this is a battle with a history at least as old as the Constitution itself? Some Presidents who've overstepped the line: Truman and the steel mills, um... NIXON! Give me five minutes on Google and I'll have a list going back to George Washington.

Let's review two of the examples of abuse he lists for Bush, the FISA/wiretapping controversy and the detainment of enemy combatants with U.S. citizenship. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats currently have an ongoing fight with Bush over the renewal of the Protect America Act. They have deadlocked over giving telecom companies immunity from lawsuits. On the enemy combatant issue, in 2004 the Supreme Court ruled against Bush on Yaser Hamdi's detainment case.

This is not to imply that I agree with everything the Bush Administration has done in these matters. I don't. I'm just pointing out that the give and take between the three branches of government is alive and well, just as the Founding Fathers intended. From my point of view the Executive, Legislative and Judicial have all expanded their powers. The balance remains the same. The idea that contentious political issues like these would be resolved over a cup of tea is naive.