Gonzales' September 2007 resignation as Attorney General (AG) means Bush II has lost another sycophant, ineffectual spokesperson, and incompetent cabinet office. Unfortunately, the resignation only removed a symptom of the malignancy and not the cause of our diseased government. The cause rests in the fascist ideology of an imperial presidency promote by Gonzales, Cheney, Yoo, and embraced by Bush II. This doctrine holds that the powers of the unitary presidency in war time gives a president an inherent authority under the Constitution as commander in chief to ignore the Geneva Convention and engage in secret domestic ease-dropping and similar activities as part of a broad but implied powers to do whatever is necessary solely in the president's judgment to protect the country. The imperial, unitary doctrine makes the president the ultimate and absolute national authority, dissolves the constitutional balance of powers, and eliminates oversight and input from Congress and the courts. Gonzales and the other proponents of this usurpation doctrine argue that a president is “the sole organ of the federal government in foreign affairs [and can] deploy armed forces ... [and] a formal declaration of war or other authorizations from Congress is not required to enable the president to undertake the full range of actions that may be necessary to protect our national security.”[1]
A cursory reading of the Constitution rejects the doctrine that a president is the sole authority in war making or foreign affairs either in peacetime or during any type of war. Power sharing with Congress is explicit and not implied or a matter of interpretation. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates Congress’ foreign affairs and war powers:
- To regulate commerce with foreign nations,...
- To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
- To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
- To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
- To provide and maintain a navy;
- To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
- To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,...
- To exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.
The president’s powers are more circumscribed. Article II, Section 1 states that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” There is no implication of unbridled power. Section 2 gives the president’s war powers as, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” How does these clauses imply unspecified and unlimited powers determined exclusively by Bush II's whims?
The president’s additional foreign affairs powers are likewise limited. “He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
Decisions regarding treason are congressional, not executive. Article III, Section 3 states that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained.” This hardly gives authority to Bush II to declare an American an enemy combatant or relieve them of the protection of the Bill of Rights.
Congress needs to cease abrogating its powers and responsibilities to an unconstitutional imperial presidency. Congress must develop some integrity and fulfill its Constitutional obligations as a check on an over-reaching and, in this case, a dumb president. The federal courts need to meet their obligations as protectors of the Constitution. Paraphrasing a favorite Republican political mantra, it needs to adhere to the Constitution rather than to neo-con/fascist ideology. The acquiesces to an imperial presidency by a ideologically disciplined Supreme Court is hardly a traditional conservative or a ‘strict constructionist’ position. Bush II's AG designate Michael Mukasey, a supporter of the Patriot Act, advocates that the government - read as executive - should receive the benefit of the doubt from its citizens based on the "structure of the Constitution." This argument and the argument of ‘implied’ or ‘inherent’ executive powers are equally spurious and specious. The Constitution's Bill of Rights and our judicial tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty' explicitly do no give government the benefit of the doubt. The Constitution’s Amendment X adopted in 1791 states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Any implied powers appear to rest in the states or the people, not with the executive.
Some closing queries for all you true American patriots: Where are the twins? What happened to the other Bush brothers? Where were Pat Buchanan, George Bush II, Dick Cheney, Newt Ginrich, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Lieberman, Trent Lott, et. al. during the Viet Nam war? Did Gonzales actually serve in the Air Force? Has General Petreaus 'westmorelanded' us? Does God really chat about politics with Bush II, Tom DeLay, and the Christian Right? Why are they called the 'Christian Right' when they are so wrong?
[1] Shenon, P., and Johnston, D., “A defender of Bush’s Power, Gonzales resigns abruptly as Attorney General,” New York Times, (August 28, 2007, p. A16.)
