it is my hope and trust, that the democrats will, for once, stand up and say NO. and then back it up with whatever force is necessary to maintain a checks & balances system on which this country was founded on, and prospers from. we are at risk, at extreme risk of losing the last vestibule of democracy, and only by resisting the bush junta will democracy have a chance to really flourish. for if the judiciary caves, then there will be no one to save us from the gates of hell opening up. and satan doesn't give a flying fuck if you're a poor homeless bum, or the richest man on earth.
WASHINGTON - All presidents seek power, but President Bush is setting a new standard with his efforts to consolidate and expand presidential authority.
He may be on the verge of his biggest victory yet as the Senate debates whether to change its rules for dealing with judicial nominations. A decision to bar Senate filibusters - unlimited debate - against judicial nominees effectively would give Bush a free hand in picking judges. It also would reduce the inherent power of every senator, and the Senate itself, to exert leverage against any president.
This is but the latest example of Bush's drive to boost White House power vis-a-vis other institutional rivals. On issue after issue, Bush has guarded presidential prerogatives and tested the limits of his office's clout. He asserted a ground-breaking doctrine of authority as commander in chief by declaring his willingness to attack other nations first if he thought them sufficiently threatening, sought to bypass the courts in dealing with terrorism suspects and proposed new restrictions on public access to presidential papers.
When Congress shelved his plans to boost federal aid to religious charities and scale back environmental regulations, he used executive orders and federal rule-making power to get his way. He's aggressively fought attempts by Congress, the news media and outside interest groups to shed light on his administration's internal deliberations.
Presidential scholars say Bush already has gone beyond previous presidents in the use of his authority.
"This Bush White House has been extremely aggressive in expanding presidential power," said Allan Lichtman, a presidential scholar at American University in Washington. "Previous presidents have used presidential power, have used executive privilege, have used executive orders, but this president has really sent it into the stratosphere."
Lichtman and other scholars agree that Bush's assertion of power differs only in degree from other recent presidents. Nearly everyone who sits in the Oval Office becomes frustrated at some point with the Constitution's checks and balances, which were intended to limit executive authority.
"He's doing what every president would do, given a chance. In wartime, presidential powers will grow simply because nobody else wants to get in the president's way," said Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin and author of a book about executive orders and presidential power. "When the opportunity has presented itself, he's pushed the envelope."
But Bush's approach isn't just a matter of circumstance. In a revealing interview late last year, Vice President Dick Cheney said the former Texas governor came to the White House determined to exert authority in the aftermath of the hotly disputed 2000 election.
"He never wanted to allow, correctly, the closeness of our election to in any way diminish the power of the presidency," Cheney told the History Channel for a documentary on the presidency.
Cheney, who served as chief of staff under President Gerald Ford, has been a forceful voice in the administration for protecting and enhancing presidential authority. Although the Constitution envisions three separate but equal branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial - the balance of power has shifted back and forth over the years.
A monumental power shift occurred in 1950, when President Harry Truman ignored Congress' right to declare war and sent American troops into combat in Korea on his own authority. Americans have fought all over the world since then without any war declaration by Congress.
Congress tried to reassert itself in the 1970s after the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal shook public confidence in the White House. Lawmakers exerted more control over the federal budget, used congressional oversight authority to rein in the CIA and the FBI, and sought to limit the president's war-making authority with the 1973 War Powers Act.
In a view echoed by presidential scholars, Cheney said he considered Ford's experience the low point in modern presidential power. The pendulum has swung back toward the White House fairly steadily since then, pushed along by the demands of a 24-hours news cycle that's enhanced the president's ability to set the national agenda.
"In many ways, the Constitution has taken a beating in the last half-century. Congress has lost its backbone," said David Adler, a political science professor at Idaho State University who specializes in balance-of-power issues. "It seems to freely surrender these powers."
Bush followed his father's lead in seeking congressional authorization for military action against Iraq, while saying he didn't need permission. But Bush went beyond his recent predecessors by claiming broad power to deal with suspected terrorists.
In a 5-4 ruling last year, the Supreme Court said Bush overstepped constitutional bounds by asserting the power to detain and interrogate suspected terrorists without giving them access to lawyers or the courts.
"That was an incredibly far-reaching claim to unilateral power," Adler said.
and there's more... on the knight-ridder wire
i know that was long, but it made a point: this isn't just about bush. he's the whipping post boy for the RNC alright, and he's obviously very happy at it. but it's the likes of cheney, and frist, and others not so well known, who have massive influence (more than normal) upon the government, what's left of our American government, and who are able to start wars whenever someone does something not to their liking. i'll be dying soon, and i can't say it's soon enough. i've had enough of this. frankly, there's not much more i can do about it.
