Et Tu Congress?
Over at today’s Boston Globe Ideas section, Drake Bennett has a superb article on the history of Congressional complicity in the expansion of the executive. A few choice quotes sum up the thrust of an article that should be read in its entirety:
'Instead of jealously guarding its institutional prerogatives, Congress has been complicit in the diminution of its powers, in a way that seems to run counter to the very logic of the Constitution's system of checks and balances.'
And again:
'As a result, the shifting balance between the legislative and executive branches has been as much a matter of Congress's conceding power as the president's seizing it.'
In other words, the presidency isn’t just usurping powers, congress is giving them away.
This historical process, which includes not only congressional acquiescence but judicial deference by the Supreme Court, suggests some of the current hysteria about imperial presidency is misguided. After all, every branch of the state is complicit. The problem is not merely a nutjob president, nor even a broader ‘imperial presidency,’ but a deeper trend in the dynamics of American government. Checks and balances now do the opposite of what they were supposed to do. When Congress is passing laws that limit its own ability to constrain, monitor and otherwise counter the executive, then there is a systemic problem. This is a problem that calls into question existing institutions, and those parties – Democrat and Republican alike – that have created such a perverted system of power.
2 Comments:
Interesting post. I think this perhaps cuts to the heart of something quite fundamental in American politics today, and which has been mentioned in other parts of this blog, about the dearth of agency in the political system. What we have seems more like a chaotic process of implosion of political power and authority, rather than an aggressive, purposeful expansion of power. This also calls into question the idea that the left has been beaten back by a neo-con / bushy juggernaut.
Surprising, and the alarming thing is that for something such as “expansion of executive of power,” which clearly undercuts the purpose of checks and balances; few articles have surfaced censuring this trend in American politics. In addition, for those that have noticed this trend in American politics, the so called “anti-expansionists,” they tend to focus on the “imperial presidency” but forget that, given checks and balances, the imperial president can only become “imperial” with the backing of the rest of the government branches. Therefore, as rightly pointed out, Congress has acquiesced their powers, and the Judiciary, having been crammed with conservatives, has deference towards the whole thing. This is very alarming for people who have extolled the American system for having the candid ability of not making a Hitler, or a Stalin.
Post a Comment
<< Home