Checks and Balances

(This post was originally posted at NoEndButVictory. I have deleted it from that site by request of a majority of the Editors.)

The key part of Gore's speech yesterday that relates to victory is, in my mind, this:

Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.

But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government.

There is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of overreach and regret. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended.

This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary or checked by Congress. President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, domestic and foreign. When added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.

This effort to rework America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and judiciary is-ironically-accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework America's foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.

The basic question here is whether the unique accumulation of power into the Executive Branch by this Administration is an obstacle to victory rather than an enabler. The President argues that his increased power is neccessary, but given that the war on terror is forecast to have no short-term end, what he is implicitly proposing is a fundamental change to our system of government. Shall we proceed without honest discussion of the consequences?

It is critical that everyone interested in serious debate read the transcript of the speech and reflect on the broader issues here. The Liberty Coalition that sponsored Gore's speech comprises groups across the political spectrum, including right-leaning groups such as the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Republican Liberty Caucus, and TownHall. We need a debate on means to our desired end - victory - if we genuinely seek to avoid destroying America in order to save it.

Tags: victory, Iraq