Jeremy,
We agree more than you might think. Historically you are 100% correct. It feels to me almost like an unspoken bargain has existed between the executive and the people. Kind of – We don’t put too specific restrictions on your power, in case you need it to protect us, and you (the president) don’t overuse or abuse it for too long. Kind of an agreed ambiguity. Habeas Corpus being the perfect example, with creative ambiguity around it in place for 150 years, but about to end. Abraham Lincoln (the first Republican president) suspended it for a period of time, because he felt he had to in his role of Commander in Chief to save the Union. The Supreme Court ultimately slapped him on the wrist, but did not create a definitive precedent to insure it never happened again. The wiggle room was left for future presidents to use if needed. Now we have George Bush (perhaps the last Republican president) with an explicit and blatant attempt to institutionalize the right of the Executive Branch to suspend Habeas Corpus at will. That cannot stand and Bush/Cheney is apparently too f*ing stupid to realize it. The result? The Leahy/Spector Bill or the Supreme Court or both will remove that option for all time and all future presidents. Better that, than letting the Cheney Doctrine stand. But better than either black or white, was that little bit of gray – which now will be be taken away. Thanks to Dick Cheney – worst vice president in history.

I believe the unique relationship between the executive branch and legislative branch see the current power dynamics for what they are and will treat the next administration accordingly, which is to say, the next in coming president will be given a chance to prove himself/herself
and their vision and agenda for America. What will remain unanswered for a time is how will the clearly excessive liberties Bush took while in office will affect the next presidents view on ‘executive powers’ and the tone of the relationship that will be struck between the incoming president and congress as to the balance of clearly needed security against terrorism on the one hand and a need to protect the very things that make America a free and thriving democracy/republic, i.e. civil rights and the right to privacy without fear of arbitrary prosecution based on ones class, creed or position.

I would agree with you, in that the next president has a roll to play, whether sought or imposed to make clear where America is going to go. Are we going to give the president (executive branch) yet more unfettered power to conduct an untethered, unchecked war on terror or is the next president going to strike a balance between security and the rights Americans have come to
revere and expect. I agree with you that this is perhaps a fork in the road of American history where it could go either way. Personally, I hope to see Americas constitutional rights and liberties upheld, even in the face of the so-called “war of our generation.” If another attack was to occur today, I’m sure the current people in power would swing the pendulum to the furthest right, justifying it by the fact that in time of war liberty must concede in the face of current dangers. Unfortunately, Bush himself has stated the belief that this “struggle” will be a struggle
of ages, not years. So, that begs the question? Are we supposed to relinquish our liberties and rights for the next 100 or 1,000 years? Then an equally apt question needs to be asked. If America ceases to “BE” America, then haven’t we already lost this struggle?

I

What I believe has people up in such arms about this ‘executive power’ issue is that the president and the vice president seem to lack
any social refinery. They have snubbed their nose at anyone and everyone outside their secretive inner circle.

People have legitimate concerns about the nature and sources of influence directing the presidents actions. Whenever these legitimate questions are asked people are shunned or altogether dismissed. People have a right to know why no-bid contracts are being given to companies which the vice president and likely the president has had past relations with.

People have the right to ask why the invasion of Iraq occurred when there wasn’t sufficient evidence that Iraq posed a danger to the US. People have a right to know why CIA officers are being
uncovered merely for their relations to another. The list goes on and on. And so does the evasion and arrogancy of this administration.

The executive branch is and ought to be an equal branch of government. It should not however, be the ‘whatever I decide is legal because I am the president” branch. After all, Nixon thought it was perfectly legal to have people running about our nations capital breaking into political rivals offices to frame them. I suppose if Nixon had the luxury of the “War on Terror” he too could have survived office by “exercising” his “executive privileges” to protect the people from “imminent dangers.” Obviously the American people were not dumb enough to fall for that then, unlike we are falling for it now.

Times of war don’t grant the president king status, and that is essentially what president Bush means when he “sees a strong and active” executive branch.