Palin and the unitary executive theory
Note: Yep, another election post … bear with me, we are getting close to this thing being over. Like many, I believe this to be the most important election in a long time, which is why it is dominating my idle thoughts.
-
It seems much of the media and meta-media reactions to the VP debate between Senator Biden and Gov. Palin is focused on who ‘won’, who had the best soundbite, the best zinger, or how Palin was able to exceed the lowest expectations in the history of expectations.
Call me nerd, but I’m a bit more interested in some of the substance. I’m particularly frightened by this answer by Palin regarding executive authority:
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with [Dick Cheney] that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.
Chills should be going down your spine right now.
Much has been written and discussed about Cheney’s philosophy of the executive branch. He has spent most of his career articulating his position rather explicitly. For example, here’s a segment from a Washington Post article from October 2004:
Cheney has tried to increase executive power with a series of bold actions — some so audacious that even conservatives on the Supreme Court sympathetic to Cheney’s view have rejected them as overreaching.
If you don’t know much about this, watch this episode of Frontline called “Cheney’s Law”, which outlines his (along with others) philosophy on executive authority and their actions towards implementing that. Proponents of the unitary executive notion argue that language in the Constitution grants the executive branch more authority than it has traditionally had, especially during wartime (which we’ve been in for just over 7 years now).
Gov. Sarah Palin says she agrees with Dick Cheney regarding the “flexibility” of the Constitution in this regard. Palin is surrounded by Rove-Cheney aides, repeats the Bushian over-simplified platitudes regarding global affairs (good vs. evil), and has a history of running her own administrations in creepily similar ways.
This woman is dangerous.
Finally … if you are a proponent of the Bush-Cheney-Palin philosophy of executive authority because you agree with their policies and think they need this power to do “what’s best for America”, consider this: What happens when someone you don’t agree with gets into office and has that power?
-
UPDATE (10/4/08): See more commentary about this topic here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I appreciated the geology feed but the callow politics is not worth wading through. I trust you approach geology more critically than you do politics.
For the record, you political take is skewed to the trendy, its painfully immature, and every superior snide remark is demonstrably false.
What’s false?
David … after thinking a bit more about your comment above I’m even more confused.
Is my take “trendy” because I’m discussing current events related to the election (e.g., this post about the VP debate the day after it happened)? That is, that’s what the buzz is today?
Why is discussing unitary executive theory, something that many serious people think is quite important and significant, regarded as “painfully immature” by you? Or, was it something in another post?
If you don’t care for (and likely disagree, I presume) regarding my political take, that’s fine … I have no problem with that. We can have a discussion about policy if you’d like.
And I’d still like to know which remarks are “false”.
Brian, I’d just like to pipe up with my support. I enjoy your blog and keep it in my top 10 or so favorites that I read all the time. People have an obligation to speak their minds as the elections (finally) come into view and it’s clear from David’s post that he’s simply not in ideological agreement with you. I find it pretty comical that anyone seriously interested in geology can _not_ find another young earth creationist in office to be a scary proposition.
RyanT … thanks for the comment and feel free to speak your mind here as you see fit. As for David and any others who disagree with my commentary, I welcome any comments because I enjoy spirited discussions … I just hope if someone says I made false claims (i.e., not opinions they disagree with, but false statements) that they point them out.
This worried me as well. For a year now, McCain has been campaigning on the platform of strict constructivism, especially in teh area of judicial appointments.
That’s cool, and I like it. But it doesn’t square with,
“our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there”.
No.
This is the same bullshit that congress uses to justify the power to regulate speed limits or marriages or educational standards or any other of the many topics that can and should be left to the states. While it was a bit rich of Biden of all people to be pointing this out, he was in fact correct in this instance.
I’m pretty disappointed.
David … it’s been almost a week … do you have examples of false statements I’ve made?
David, it’s been over three weeks … I assume you are long gone by now.