News Will Bush Hand Over the Presidency Peaceably in 2009?

[russ_watters]

Simple question, simple answers. We've had a lot of, what I consider, pontificating about the US becoming a "police state" lately (ehh, who am I kidding - people have been saying it for decades). I'd like to avoid the argument of what constitues a "police state" and are we actually moving in that direction for now and take the question all the way to it's logical end:

Do you think Bush will hand over the Presidency peaceably in 2009 or will he make some effort to keep it? [if no, specify]

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Barring any unforseeable events of great magnitude I would have to say that he will hand it over without a hitch.

 

[franznietzsche]

I'll agree we're moving in the wrong direction, but he doesn't have that kind of hold yet. I wouldn't be surprised to see a push to eliminate presidential term limits sometime in the next decade or so. Its already clear the the government (both parties) are more interested in what serves them than what serves the people. Its only a matter of time.

 

[loseyourname]

It's hard to believe that any military/police agency out there would be so loyal to Bush as to break their oath to the Constitution and not depose him should he refuse to vacate his office at the appointed time. He'd be an idiot to even try it. ('Sure Bush, you and what army?')

 

[franznietzsche]

It's hard to believe that any military/police agency out there would be so loyal to Bush as to break their oath to the Constitution and not depose him should he refuse to vacate his office at the appointed time. He'd be an idiot to even try it. ('Sure Bush, you and what army?')

Pretty much. But the government already doesn't care about the constitution, its only a matter of time before the military/police agencies fall into line.

 

[RVBuckeye]

My brother and I were talking about this exact thing the other day. He's a conspiracy buff, coupled with a christian believer in the apocolypse. If Bush tries it and succeeds, I know he will be convinced that the end is near. I on the other hand, as a veteran, am with Lyn on this one.

 

[Astronuc]

It's somewhat amazing and worrisome that such a question would even be considered. Has the situation in this country deteriorated so much?

I voted yes - and I add - I hope that is the case, but we will not know until Jan 20, 2009.

 

[Eric1]

Bush will hand over presidency

President Bush is not some kind of evil Tyrant, trying to establish permanent rule over the United States.
He will hand over his Presidency willingly just as every other president in our countries history.

 

[Gokul43201]

Simple question, simple answers. We've had a lot of, what I consider, pontificating about the US becoming a "police state" lately (ehh, who am I kidding - people have been saying it for decades). I'd like to avoid the argument of what constitues a "police state" and are we actually moving in that direction for now and take the question all the way to it's logical end:

Do you think Bush will hand over the Presidency peaceably in 2009 or will he make some effort to keep it? [if no, specify]

I fail to see the logic in arriving at this logical end.

How is "the President handing over power in 2009" any indication that we are not moving towards a police state ?

Does Roe v. Wade need to be overturned to confirm that we under a more conservative administration ?

 

[Bystander]

Police state? Hmm: the "Garbage Gestapo" in Wash. or Ore.; the "Al Gore Water Closet Commandos" busting toilet tank smugglers at both borders --- naah --- "Keystone Kops" state, maybe.

 

[climbhi]

He will hand over his Presidency willingly just as every other president in our countries history.

Just to make mention here, not every president has handed over the presidency willingly. There are a few rare exceptions. There was no violence involved or anything, but they did show some resistance.

Apparently this is the reason why the Framers decided not to term limit the presidency originally. They were afraid that forcing a president to leave office via term limits could have generated the type of resistance that could have sprung into violent conflict in the early formative years of the Union.

That being said, I really can't believe that there are even people out there debating this. Of course he's going to leave the presidency willingly. He may have done some bone head things in his presidency, but this is just far beyond the realms of imagination. Not even in the most fantastical dreams of the far-left or far-right could something like this ever happen.

 

[SOS2008]

I believe the OP is an extension of the debate before the 2004 election:

OFFICIALS OF the Bush administration are said to be pondering what power they have -- or should seek -- to postpone national elections in November in the event of terrorist strikes aimed at disrupting the democratic process.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/13/EDGO37JFBC1.DTL

At the same time, powerful emotional and even political arguments exist for holding a presidential election on the day it was meant to be held, regardless of what happens and who is unable to vote, just as it was held during the Civil War and just as it would be held in case of a hurricane, flood, fire or other natural catastrophe. This is not merely because talking about it in advance encourages those who might carry out a disruption. It's also because a postponed election would not necessarily have any greater legitimacy than an election disrupted by a terrorist attack. Congress should think through the consequences of a disrupted election, but it should remain extremely wary of any scheme to hold a presidential election at any time other than the first Tuesday of November.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48234-2004Jul13.html

Chicago Sun-Times
http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits13.html
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07-13-edit_x.htm
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4872617.html

And so forth. This includes speculation of escalation into another world war:

The continuing crisis in Europe made voters desire a strong and experienced president, so incumbent President Franklin D. Roosevelt broke with tradition and ran for a third term as president. This, in turn, would lead to the passage of the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1940

It is not so far fetched, especially with a less than scrupulous president and administration. But I also agree with LYN that if it is done without support of the American people, it would require the support of the military, and this is not likely.

So I voted "Other" since it depends on whether there is a crisis and/or popular support at the time.

 

[russ_watters]

I fail to see the logic in arriving at this logical end.

How is "the President handing over power in 2009" any indication that we are not moving towards a police state ?

The logic is simply that the logical end of moving towad a police state is becoming a police state. I said I didn't want to argue over what that means exactly, in this thread and I meant it, but people generally consider Hitler's burning of the Reichstag and siezing of dictatorial power as the time when democracy finally died in Germany.

Judging by some responses here, I probably should have included another possible answer - that he'd try some subterfuge (ie, repealing term limits, manufacturing a late-term crisis), but if he failed to get that through or a crisis failed to materialize, that he wouldn't try any further. That kinda, but not quite fits with the "no" response. Several comments, though...

Pretty much. But the government already doesn't care about the constitution, its only a matter of time before the military/police agencies fall into line.

That's something I hear from time to time, but as a veteran, I don't accept that those in the military are somehow fundamentally different than everyone else. The police/military would not "fall into line".

It's somewhat amazing and worrisome that such a question would even be considered. Has the situation in this country deteriorated so much?

I don't think it has. In fact, such conspiracy theories are pretty common for a lot of presidencies (I linked the Clinton/Y2K conspiracy theory in another thread - people don't update their websites even 6 years after being wrong ). So I don't think asking the question imlies anything about us moving in that direction.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well the government DOESN'T folow the Constitution. The Constitution says that war may only be declared by Congress. Congress hasn't done tha since 1941. And how many wars have we been in since then?

And don't talk to me about the War Powers Act! Where does the Constitution say the Legislative Branch can delegate its powers to the Executive Branch?

The imperial presidency has been a problem for decades, but the Bush administration has taken it to a frightening new level. I don't see how you can deny that, Russ.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Technically we've been at war with Iraq since the first gulf war. Did Congress not authorize that one?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Technically we've been at war with Iraq since the first gulf war. Did Congress not authorize that one?

They passed a resolution. A resolution has no legal force.

 

[russ_watters]

Well the government DOESN'T folow the Constitution. The Constitution says that war may only be declared by Congress. Congress hasn't done tha since 1941. And how many wars have we been in since then?

That is simply an area of the Constitution that is poorly worded/defined. It doesn't mean that it isn't being followed. Besides not defining the word "war", it also doesn't say what the point of "declaring war" is. Ie, if everyone already knows you are at war, why do you need to declare it?

And don't talk to me about the War Powers Act! Where does the Constitution say the Legislative Branch can delegate its powers to the Executive Branch?

The War Powers Resolution isn't meant to give power to the Executive Branch, it is meant to clarify the vagaries in the Constitution alluded to above in order to reduce/cap the President's power. That is the stated purpose of the resolution.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

Your interpretation does not reflect the reality of why it was enacted.

Not only that, but every President since it was enacted has considered it an unConstitutional reduction of his power. And given Congress's unwillingess to attempt to enforce it, I rather suspect they either agree or are too afraid that the USSC will agree to risk a challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Every President since the War Powers Resolution's enactment has taken the position that it is an unconstitutional infringement by the Congress on the President's authority as Commander in Chief...

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution — Philip Bobbitt's in "War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely's War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath," Michigan Law Quarterly 92, no. 6 (May 1994): 1364–1400 — runs as follows: "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception"; the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was only meant for total wars, as shown by the history of the French Naval War (1798–1800); in general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the president commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized.

The imperial presidency has been a problem for decades, but the Bush administration has taken it to a frightening new level. I don't see how you can deny that, Russ.

Well, I didn't deny either in this thread, but since you asked...

If by "imperial Presidency", you mean that the Presidents of the past 50 years have been acting to increase their power, I would tend to agree that the statement is factually accurate, though disagree with the intended negative connotation of the label, and with considerable caveats due to the ups and downs caused by historical events. Ie, the powers Bush is exercising don't rise to the level of what Lincoln did in the Civil War and as far as expansion of government in general, they don't come close to what FDR did (though, yes, both are more than 50 years - why limit it to 50 years?).

For the second part, that Bush has taken it to a higher level (than most in the past 50 years), I would also tend to agree that that is factually accurate, but again, disagree with the negative opinion-based word "frightening", partly for some of the same caveats as above and partly because of other caveats - like the real threat to our country that terrorism poses.

Anyway, none of that has anything to do with what I was asking in the poll.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The War Powers Resolution isn't meant to give power to the Executive Branch, it is meant to clarify the vagaries in the Constitution alluded to above in order to reduce/cap the President's power. That is the stated purpose of the resolution

And how can a mere resolution validly clarify the wording of the Constitution? The Constitution war clause is perfectly clear and everybody knew what war was back then. The problem today is that we have a huge standing army, something the framers deprecated and the scale of which they could never have imagined. The President doesn't have to approach Congress to raise an army, and Congress is just delighted for him to take the hard decisions off their hands. The President can just go ahead and commit forces in being, as Johnson did in 1965, and the War Powers thingy was intended to prevent future Presidents from doing that. But since it was only a resolution without legal force, it could never have curbed an ambitious President, and as we have seen with G.W. Bush, it didn't. His father, a long time Washington D.C. insider, was careful to preserve Congress's fig leaf, but that was entirely voluntary on his part.

I repeat the Constitution is clear, and quibbling won't change its plain sense. And if you really - and not just for the sake of debating points - feel that it is in any way ambiguous, then the way to go is amendment, not to support the present shady evasions.

The treat of terrorism really belongs in another thread, but I will merely state that I really am terrified by the measures the Bush administration has taken to evade and deny even the weak Judicial oversight that was in place when he took office. That frightens me a lot more than Osama bin Laden. The "only used against terrorists' is another fig leaf, and will be stripped away whenever some President wants to pursue some other "threat to democracy".

 

[climbhi]

And don't talk to me about the War Powers Act! Where does the Constitution say the Legislative Branch can delegate its powers to the Executive Branch?

Perhaps the Constitution does not explicitly state that the Congress cannot delegate its powers to the President, but that was, more or less, the Supreme Court's central holding in Clinton v. New York. The Court found in Clinton that congress could not delegate its veto authority to the President via the line item veto.

Justice Breyer wrote a dissent in which he cited what he considers numerous examples of congressional delegation of powers. However Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion refutes this idea as acceptable, saying that it would inevitably lead to the favoritism of certain group's rights over others.

 

[russ_watters]

And how can a mere resolution validly clarify the wording of the Constitution?

It can't, legally - which is why there is a prevailing view that it is unconstitutional. That's what I said above - where we differed is that you said - incorrectly - that the WPR was an attempt to give more power to the President. You appear to hold the incorrect position that whenever a President commits forces anywhere, he needs a declaration of war. That has never been the practiced interpretation of the Constitution. Clearly, if that were true, then the President would not be CINC, as it says in the Constitution - Congress would be.

The Constitution war clause is perfectly clear and everybody knew what war was back then.

That is untrue at face value: we fought an undeclared war with France from 1798-1800. So the problem has been around right from the beginning.

The problem today is that we have a huge standing army, something the framers deprecated and the scale of which they could never have imagined. The President doesn't have to approach Congress to raise an army, and Congress is just delighted for him to take the hard decisions off their hands.

And never did in the past either...

The President can just go ahead and commit forces in being, as Johnson did in 1965, and the War Powers thingy was intended to prevent future Presidents from doing that.

Well, no - the WPR doesn't prevent the President from committing forces, it just puts a time limit on it pending Congressional approval. Congress understands that it doesn't have the power to prevent the President from exercising his power as CINC.

But since it was only a resolution without legal force, it could never have curbed an ambitious President, and as we have seen with G.W. Bush, it didn't. His father, a long time Washington D.C. insider, was careful to preserve Congress's fig leaf, but that was entirely voluntary on his part.

Actually, while Bush II ignored the WPR, Congress did not - they passed an authorizing resolution without his request in order to avoid a fight about it.

I repeat the Constitution is clear, and quibbling won't change its plain sense.

And I repeat - that is untrue at face value.

And if you really - and not just for the sake of debating points - feel that it is in any way ambiguous, then the way to go is amendment, not to support the present shady evasions.

True - but when Congress passed the WPR, it likely did that because it knew it would be unable to pass an amendment.

The treat of terrorism really belongs in another thread, but I will merely state that I really am terrified by the measures the Bush administration has taken to evade and deny even the weak Judicial oversight that was in place when he took office. That frightens me a lot more than Osama bin Laden. The "only used against terrorists' is another fig leaf, and will be stripped away whenever some President wants to pursue some other "threat to democracy".

Perhaps I should start another poll about the Patriot Act - I don't think it'll last beyond Bush's term. As I implied in a previous post, such extensions of power typically go away after the threat has passed.

edit: more info on declared/undeclared wars in our past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

The US has only declared war 11 times for 5 wars. And the Korean War was never even approved by Congress (in a WPR type resolution, as many earlier wars were).

 

[BobG]

Perhaps I should start another poll about the Patriot Act - I don't think it'll last beyond Bush's term. As I implied in a previous post, such extensions of power typically go away after the threat has passed.

Are you implying that the threat will go away as soon as Bush leaves office?

Keep in mind that the "War on Terror" has been relabeled "The Long War" and will likely last a couple of decades or so (so the threat isn't going away soon). Sooner or later, we have to quit pretending our measures are just temporary to get a through a short term crisis. We have to decide just what the balance should be between liberty and security.

How it is changed depends on the type of President we get next. Right now, fear is a pretty good campaign strategy - especially if there's no candidate expressing a more confident and positive attitude.

 

[SOS2008]

Are you implying that the threat will go away as soon as Bush leaves office?

Keep in mind that the "War on Terror" has been relabeled "The Long War" and will likely last a couple of decades or so (so the threat isn't going away soon). Sooner or later, we have to quit pretending our measures are just temporary to get a through a short term crisis. We have to decide just what the balance should be between liberty and security.

How it is changed depends on the type of President we get next. Right now, fear is a pretty good campaign strategy - especially if there's no candidate expressing a more confident and positive attitude.

"House vote: Last bar to USA Patriot Act renewal
Senate approves controversial measure 89-10 after months of wrangling" -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11638713/

I agree that the national security card will continue to be played, just with different approaches. For example, I said the DP World deal was questionable because of foreign management in general, and now this is exactly the debate. If one looks at the big picture there will be more success in predicting the long-run.

 

[Skyhunter]

No.

He will be impeached in 2007.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Keep in mind that the "War on Terror" has been relabeled "The Long War" and will likely last a couple of decades or so (so the threat isn't going away soon). Sooner or later, we have to quit pretending our measures are just temporary to get a through a short term crisis. We have to decide just what the balance should be between liberty and security.

The trick is that we never decide anything, we just forget what we've lost and we get used to it. Then someone finds a reason to push the line a little farther, and we forget, and farther...and farther...

 

[selfAdjoint]

The trick is that we never decide anything, we just forget what we've lost and we get used to it. Then someone finds a reason to push the line a little farther, and we forget, and farther...and farther...

Quite. Boiling frogs.

 

[russ_watters]

No.

He will be impeached in 2007.

But will he be removed from office?

Bold prediction.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you implying that the threat will go away as soon as Bush leaves office?

I suspect that regardless of who replaces Bush, the "war on terror" will pretty much go away and with it, most of what is in the Patriot Act. That does somewhat depend on catching/killing Bin Laden, but even failing that, there isn't much else to do. He and his organization is by far the biggest piece of the threat.

edit: However, the next few months of Hamas may have a big influence on that.

Keep in mind that the "War on Terror" has been relabeled "The Long War" and will likely last a couple of decades or so (so the threat isn't going away soon).

Presidents ignored the threat for decades before, so I don't see why there is any reason to assume they won't do it again.

Sooner or later, we have to quit pretending our measures are just temporary to get a through a short term crisis. We have to decide just what the balance should be between liberty and security.

Well, certainly - there are some perfectly logical and reasonable "measures" that will likely stay for a long time, and rightfully so. Ie, I personally think it is logical and reasonable to make every passenger pass through a metal detector and x-ray every bag going on a plane. I doubt that will go away. Other security measures, such as no-fly/walk/drive zones around some areas, probably will go away.

How it is changed depends on the type of President we get next. Right now, fear is a pretty good campaign strategy - especially if there's no candidate expressing a more confident and positive attitude.

Democrats don't do foreign policy fear, they do economic fear, and it is reasonable to assume that the next Democratic candidate will follow the same mold the last few have. The Republican strategy also has a good chance of being different from Bush's due to his lack of popularity. Ie, remember the lengths Gore went to to distance himself from Clinton as the floor fell out from underneath him, economically? It didn't work, but the point is, he didn't just try to be an extension of Clinton and the next Republican probably won't be trying to mold himself after Bush.

 

[pattylou]

Sure he'll hand it over peacably, to the next republican who is picked by the corporations and e-voting machines.

Hell, he doesn't run the country now. He'll hand it over, but that has no bearing on what's going on politically.

The other scenario is equally bad. Hilary gets the presidency for 8 years, followed by Jeb for eight years ---- 36 years of rule by two families. That's almost two generations time.

I think we all wish McCain had won the nomination in 2000. Why didn't he? Oh yeah, nevermind.

 

[franznietzsche]

Sure he'll hand it over peacably, to the next republican who is picked by the corporations and e-voting machines.

You miss the historical fact that Democratic party candidates like Clinton go through the same process. If I remember correctly Clinton was interviewed early on by a number of big banks (whose collective board members have their hands in every major corporation in the country), and they chose him, gave him early financing, and he gave out a few treasury department appointments to them.




I honestly believe that Bush fancies himself as George IV. I honestly laugh at liberals who still care about Roe v Wade and think it matters. What really matters is that every one of George's judicial appointments have clear records of promoting the expansion of executive power. Its for this reason that I am willing to predict a push to eliminate presidential term limits within a decade, because its possible it could get through. From there I see a reduction of the power of Congress, not in law, but in practice. And from there its only a matter of time. I very seriously don't expect democracy to last, even in name, much less in reality, through the end of the century in this country, without a massive backlash against the entire structure of the federal government. The constitution as it stands is fundamentally flawed, it basically mandates a two-party system, which squeezes out political moderates. Federalism has been dying a tortured death for the last 150 years, and was the only thing that could have prevented a push for more supreme executive power.

 

[pattylou]

Bush floated the idea of postponing the 2004 elections in May prior to the elections. That was not well-met, and the idea was quickly dropped.

We're already halfway to 2008. We're already 6 years into Bush's presidency. Ten years is much too short a time to effect the sorts of changes you're suggesting.

Justices change their perpsectives over time. Bush can't foresee how perspectives will change.

There will be so many other problems on the table over the next ten years that will affect who the american people will vote for - We'll either become complacent about the "war on terror" because there are no attacks on American soil (which seems to be the only thing that people care about), and in that case it won't be a voting issue, or the incumbent will be inneffective (there *will* be attacks) and get booted out. In either case, Bush's support through fear will be diminished, and issues like environmental degradation and employment will get back onto center stage.

(I'm not really here.)

(Your argument about democrats going through the same process would carry more weight if the evoting vendors were split in their political preferences. they're not. )

 

[franznietzsche]

(Your argument about democrats going through the same process would carry more weight if the evoting vendors were split in their political preferences. they're not. )

I was talking about candidates being selected by corporations before the primaries, which as known fact, as opposed to supposed voting fraud.

 

[pattylou]

Well, certainly independents (without corporate sponsorship) run in every election cycle, and fraud of one sort or another is present in every cycle... so I expect we are roughly agreeing, that elections are sub-optimal and not representative of the will of the people.

 

[franznietzsche]

Well, certainly independents (without corporate sponsorship) run in every election cycle, and fraud of one sort or another is present in every cycle... so I expect we are roughly agreeing, that elections are sub-optimal and not representative of the will of the people.

Yes, but my point is that Democrats are just as corporate selected as Republicans--its just a different set of corporations.

 

[BobG]

I honestly believe that Bush fancies himself as George IV. I honestly laugh at liberals who still care about Roe v Wade and think it matters. What really matters is that every one of George's judicial appointments have clear records of promoting the expansion of executive power. Its for this reason that I am willing to predict a push to eliminate presidential term limits within a decade, because its possible it could get through.

Presidential term limits were enacted via the 22nd Amendment. An amendment is a change to the constitution - in other words, becomes part of the constitution.

It would take a new amendment, repealing the 22nd, to eliminate Presidential term limits - something that has to be passed by Congress and then ratified by the states (just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment).

That makes the make-up of the court irrelevant, since it would be hard for any court to declare the Constitution, or some part of the Constitution, as unconstitutional.

The only way the court could conceivably figure into this is if the amendment's approval process were suspect. The 22nd took nearly 4 years to be ratified, which makes it one of the three longest ratification periods, but it doesn't even compare to the longest (the 27th Amendment took 203 years to be ratified by the states and easily has the most questionable approval and ratification process).

 

[franznietzsche]

Presidential term limits were enacted via the 22nd Amendment. An amendment is a change to the constitution - in other words, becomes part of the constitution.

It would take a new amendment, repealing the 22nd, to eliminate Presidential term limits - something that has to be passed by Congress and then ratified by the states (just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment).

That makes the make-up of the court irrelevant, since it would be hard for any court to declare the Constitution, or some part of the Constitution, as unconstitutional.

The only way the court could conceivably figure into this is if the amendment's approval process were suspect. The 22nd took nearly 4 years to be ratified, which makes it one of the three longest ratification periods, but it doesn't even compare to the longest (the 27th Amendment took 203 years to be ratified by the states and easily has the most questionable approval and ratification process).

What I meant was that there is a clear push towards putting people into government that favor the expansion of executive power. As the courts move that way, the legislature will as well.