Is the Executive too Powerful?

[La literatura]

I'm not sure if anyone saw the recent interview Charlie Rose had with Dick Cheney, but the last segment was about the resurgence of power held by the President post-9/11.

The way it ended on such a note was effective, nearly suggesting that more than Iraq, more than national security, the legacy of Bush and Cheney will be one of shifting power away from the legislative branch, and towards the president.

It was Cheney's contention that it was not philosophically-driven, but rather, a necessity to meet the current demands of the day: mainly, terrorism.

But, has the Executive become too powerful? And by that, I don't mean, "Has the federal government become too powerful?" I mean, "Relative to Congressional authority and even judicial oversight, has the Executive branch become too powerful?"

Consider the current Congress. Is there anyone who would suggest that it's not a fractured mess right now? The Executive at least speaks with a more unified voice than a politically divided legislative branch composed of two houses.

Poll coming.

[Direckshun]

I would definitely say that it has.

Bush's wiretapping scandal and Obama's drone program is the perfect example how.

[DementedLogic]

I would say the abuse of power by the executive branch post 9/11 is too powerful, but it is also unconstitutional.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

If it is, then Cheney and Bush are largely to blame, as they purposely sought out sycophants from the Justice Dept. like John Yoo to legitimize their desire for expansive powers with his specious Unitary Executive Theory.**

**In no way does said post constitute an endorsement for machine wars conducted in sovereign lands.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yes the EB is too powerful, but congress is too large to be effective at just about anything.

[Dayze]

oddly enough, "the Executive Branch" is the name I have for my weiner.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I would definitely say that it has.

Bush's wiretapping scandal and Obama's drone program is the perfect example how.

I should clarify this answer.

I think it definitely is too powerful in some ways, such as those I mentioned above.

Other ways, it's either appropriate or not powerful enough. An example would be appointments -- the executive branch should not need 1,400 people to be Senate-approved.

[J Diddy]

Yes I would say it has. I would also agree with Cheney (God save my soul) that it is necessary militarily in the terrorism age.

However, the real question is once that can is opened do you get to keep going back to it for reasons that aren't militarily related?

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Yes I would say it has. I would also agree with Cheney (God save my soul) that it is necessary militarily in the terrorism age.

However, the real question is once that can is opened do you get to keep going back to it for reasons that aren't militarily related?

3000 lives and more aren't worth the checks and balances established in the US Constitution. Not even a little bit. That sounds harsh, but when you consider the blood already spent and tyranny imposed, it'll take more than a few lives to get it back because the power gained buy any branch will have to be taken back through violence. This same situation has played out over and over again in our human history.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

If it is, then Cheney and Bush are largely to blame, as they purposely sought out sycophants from the Justice Dept. like John Yoo to legitimize their desire for expansive powers with his specious Unitary Executive Theory.**

**In no way does said post constitute an endorsement for machine wars conducted in sovereign lands.

IMHO, Congress itself is to blame.