Cheney is correct (almost)

examiner.com ^ | 12-22-08 | tony campbell

[em2vn]

In between meaningful football games yesterday, I saw clips of Vice President Cheney with Chris Wallace and read some comments on the interview. Frequent readers of my blog understands that I am far from a Bush / Cheney apologist. In fact, I am pretty close to a non-entity in conservative Republican circles because of my early public support for Obama last January. However, in this case, I have to agree with the Vice President (almost) in his opinion that the Congress is equally culpable in both the breach of civil liberties but also the Constitutional idea of checks and balances.

Here is the excerpt from the Cheney / Wallace interview:

“What we did in this administration is to exert that kind of authority. We did it in a manner that I believe and the lawyers that we looked to for advice believed was fully consistent with the Constitution and with the laws of the land. And there’s, I say, ample precedent for it.

If you think about what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War, what FDR did during World War II, they went far beyond anything we’ve done in the global war on terror.

But we have exercised, I think, the legitimate authority of the president under Article 2 of the Constitution as commander in chief in order to put in place policies and programs that have successfully defended the nation.”

Vice President Cheney is historically and factually correct in his interpretation of the shifting of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in times of national crisis. While the letter of the Constitution has been adhered to by the Bush Administration; it is clear that the spirit of the Constitution has been trampled. However, I do not place fault with the Bush Adminstration; I place fault squarely on the Congress.

The drafters of the Constitution understood the need for the legislative branch to be the sovereign power in a Republic. As Cheney stated yesterday, Article I establishes the sovereignty of the Congress and purposefully places the Executive Branch under Article II. Here is the payoff: The Executive Branch has only received as much as the Legislative Branch has given to it. Congress appropriates the money; approves treaties and authorizes prolonged military actions; and according to Cheney, gave consent to governmental activities (electronic eavesdropping by the NSA) that are questionable in regards to its citizens.

The Bush / Cheney administration fulfilled the role envisioned by the founders of our Republic; an Executive Branch that can and will try to use sovereign power if the Legislative Branch is allows them to take it. In 2006 and in 2008, the American people changed the makeup of the sovereign branch of government by switching the majority from Republicans to Democrats. It will be interesting to see if a Democratic Congress is able and willing to reassert the Constitutionally mandated sovereignty of the Legislative Branch that was designed by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison over the mantra of “change” offered by the Obama Administration

[em2vn]

I think the change mantra is already wearing thin.

[Red6]

“Hope and Change, Change and Hope” = late 60s - 70s rehashing of hippie and socialist ideas. Talk to Iran, decriminalize pot, cut on defense and build a “great society,” abortion on demand, gay rights. Mr. Obama simply was the right guy at the right time and place. A well dressed black guy who met the minimal qualifications, older than 35 and naturally born. Unlike some of his predecessors (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) Obama is “articulate and clean.”

Cool leaders that are hip but lack experience, training, and character, lead one down the road New Orleans was during Katrina. Incompetent leadership carries with it a high price, but at least we all know Obama can dance, we saw it on the Ellen DeGeneres show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4

[pallis]

This guy is still duped by the lunatics. What we are going to see is a consolidation of the executive branch and the legislative branch that will ride roughshod over the Constitution, until it is meaningless. Neither branch will honor the Constitution, and the Supremes will let it slide, just like they’ve rolled over on the matter of the Kenyan’s birth certificate. Welcome to the USSA.

Another thing, probably over this clown’s head, is that the US is a complicated nation that should avoid any change that isn’t incremental and able to be tested before it does its damage. That is one of the beauties of states rights that will soon be changed. Change for the sake of change is lunacy, especially when that change is going to come at the hands of an inexperienced, superficially educated Marxist, a narcissistic punk who has spent his useless adult life hating America. The “Change” mantra will indeed wear thin, and scare the hell out of thinking people while it does. Nothing good is going to come out of Obama and this Congress. Brace yourselves.

[Redbob]

Any goofball who was EVER any kind of Obama supporter is not and has never been any kind of Conservative!

[GBA]

"A well dressed black guy who met the minimal qualifications, older than 35 and naturally born."

He has yet to verify meeting those minimum Constitutional requirements, not that it seems to matter.

[Popman]

In fact, I am pretty close to a non-entity in conservative Republican circles because of my early public support for Obama last January

Stopped reading right there.

[trek]

"That is one of the beauties of states rights that will soon be changed."

Amen brother.

Only it was changed long ago. There is only one thing I agree with the media on these days and that is their comparison of Obama to Lincoln. I fear the fools in the press will be far more correct on this one than they ever imagined.

[truthguy]

In fact, I am pretty close to a non-entity in conservative Republican circles because of my early public support for Obama last January

Stopped reading right there.

I was going to post the same thing but you beat me to it. Whenever anyone tells me they supported Obama I dismiss them as a lightweight right from the get go. I also make sure they are aware that I think that they are a lightweight. I like to insult these fools without insulting them if you when what I mean.

There are 2 consolation prizes that we have from the election.

1. John McCain will not be president.
2. I will enjoy "grinding it" into the faces of those whom I know who supported Obama. This will happen very soon and it is guaranteed. I will be ruthless.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

He missed out that early on in Bush’s presidency, with a Republican congress, Bush tried an extraordinary thing, a return to an intermittent presidential policy of the late 19th Century.

That is, that the President should be the executive, but that congress should “run the country”. It was a disaster. (It wasn’t too great back then, either. But congress still had more experience then.)

Congress was not up to the job of running the country. The Republicans lacked purpose, direction, and most of all, party discipline. So congress degenerated into an orgy of foolish spending, while disregarding any national purpose.

Bush even gave them what he thought was a softball, the long festering illegal immigration issue, that turned into a nightmare.

Bush than made the situation worse by using an extra-constitutional process, the Presidential Signing Statement, to further muck up the bills that congress passed.

So now we have an imbalanced situation of a too strong executive, a pathetic congress, an isolated judiciary, and a bureaucracy that imagines itself in charge of things. Add to that the mediocre Afghanistan war, which has little chance of anything like a decisive conclusion, and a horrific economic downturn.

Yes, a muddle.

Hopefully, the Republicans will spend their time out of power getting their act together, establishing and maintaining party discipline, getting some new blood in their leadership, and be able to jump right on in with new ideas when the Democrats collapse.

[HawaiianGecko]

"However, in this case, I have to agree with the Vice President (almost) in his opinion that the Congress is equally culpable in both the breach of civil liberties but also the Constitutional idea of checks and balances.... "

The problem with this statement is that the Vice President didn't argue this point.  He does not claim that civil liberties were breach at all.  This is simply one of those 'camel's nose under the tent' type of statements attempting to confirm that the Bush administration did something wrong, and with a devious attempt to make it palatable by claiming congress went along for the ride. 

The VP says it was not illegal because congressional leaders were fully informed, agreed with and authorized the positions of the administration. The fact that congress wasn't fully informed was simply a matter of need to know classification.

[TalBlack]

“Another thing, probably over this clown’s head, is that the US is a complicated nation that should avoid any change that isn’t incremental and able to be tested before it does its damage.”

This is the basis of my idea that Obozo and the Dems are gonna’ over-reach. Their anger and arrogance will, as usual, blind them.

[AmericanVictory]

One of our sons writes for the same website as “The Independent Conservative,” and I believe he may go through some similar second thoughts as matters progress. We argue about it a bit.

Of course, as one who spent four years in Ci-cago I was very suspicious of the One from the beginning.

[gusopol3]

well- chronicled is how underlings in the executive branch turned affirmative action into something that went way beyond anything Congress ever passed. So if this guy thinks he’s seeing anything new or unique, or if he thinks he has some blazing insight, it’s only because of that second helping of beans he had for supper.

[SlapHappyPappy]

I want to believe this guy, but he claimed there were meaningful football games yesterday. That really hurts his credibility.