http://www.undiplomatic.net/2009/03/03/power-corrupts-unenumerated-powers/ Bringing foreign policy back, girl. Those other countries don't know how to act. Mon, 21 May 2012 18:42:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 http://www.undiplomatic.net/2009/03/03/power-corrupts-unenumerated-powers/#comment-60510 Tomson Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:47:07 +0000 http://www.undiplomatic.net/?p=2799#comment-60510 Dude, not to sound snide, but you should ask a lawyer before you start ranting about this stuff. For one thing, your kneejerk liberal reaction about the use of the Indian precedent is dumb. It's not like citing a Presidential action as constitutional precedent means you must agree with the policy, that's besides the point. Second, your strict constructionist argument is totally wrong. Strict constructionists are hesitant about creating new rights not in the bill of rights or later amendments. It has nothing to do with Article II and the executive power. Finally, most people agree, and the supreme court has ruled that presidential powers are unenumerated. This isn't some crazy shit John Yoo is making up. Where people disagree with him is in defining how the enumerated powers of Congress act as limitations on the executive power, and the extent of power left over to the president. And furthermore, if you think the idea that the president has the authority to respond to an attack is some kind of right wing idea, you're absolutely wrong. Every president at least since Truman has claimed this power, and most of them have also claimed the power to use military force offensively abroad to act against "threats." President Bush got authorizations from Congress for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton didn't get any authorization before he bombed the shit out of Kosovo. Dude, not to sound snide, but you should ask a lawyer before you start ranting about this stuff. For one thing, your kneejerk liberal reaction about the use of the Indian precedent is dumb. It’s not like citing a Presidential action as constitutional precedent means you must agree with the policy, that’s besides the point. Second, your strict constructionist argument is totally wrong. Strict constructionists are hesitant about creating new rights not in the bill of rights or later amendments. It has nothing to do with Article II and the executive power. Finally, most people agree, and the supreme court has ruled that presidential powers are unenumerated. This isn’t some crazy shit John Yoo is making up. Where people disagree with him is in defining how the enumerated powers of Congress act as limitations on the executive power, and the extent of power left over to the president. And furthermore, if you think the idea that the president has the authority to respond to an attack is some kind of right wing idea, you’re absolutely wrong. Every president at least since Truman has claimed this power, and most of them have also claimed the power to use military force offensively abroad to act against “threats.” President Bush got authorizations from Congress for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton didn’t get any authorization before he bombed the shit out of Kosovo.

]]>