2.14.2010
The King Must Act
The New York Times informs us that President Obama will enact his agenda with or without Congress. Remember when the New York Times used to be concerned about the limits of the power of the executive branch of government?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
no no, they were just concerned about limiting the power of Dick Cheney! it's different.
I'm not sure why this is surprising. It all depends on what one is doing with one's power. Had Obama used his power to push through an anti-abortion agenda (which I know is pure fantasy), you would not have a problem with it. Cheney's policies were nothing but death-dealing. Those who opposed him did not oppose him but what he stood for and did. Obama should use what power he has for good: to ram through universal health care and a complete ban on mountaintop removal. This would be power used in the service of life.
This is why abstract discussion is worthless. It all depends on specifics.
That legal abortion was imposed by judicial fiat is regarded as a major reason for the contentiousness surrounding it here in the U.S. My guess is that most pro-lifers want pro-life legislation that will stick and not be unenforced or overturned by the next administration, setting the cause back even further. Thus I can't imagine that a pro-lifer who understands the U.S. political process would "have no problem with" the president imposing a pro-life agenda by fiat. But it's a handy straw man, I suppose.
cminor's rejoinder is correct. when you write, "Had Obama used his power to push through an anti-abortion agenda (which I know is pure fantasy), you would not have a problem with it," you incorrectly assume what I think. One point of this post is that the American government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The President does not have the authority to do the things of which you speak. The other point is that the New York Times and other critics of the Bush administration are not really concerned with limits on executive power. Rather they are concerned with limiting executive power over the policies they do not like. Your response actually shows that you see this in their commentary. I think it is wrong either way because the President does not have the powers which he is attributed by the New York Times. He does not have the power to ram health care or mountaintop preservation policies through - and I do not think he should have that power. America is not a monarchy, even if many would prefer it.
Post a Comment