by Nomad
In 1973, in the throes of the Nixon scandal, author Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. published a book entitled "The Imperial Presidency." in that book, he warned that the office of president of the United States had drifted far from the one envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Less of a servant of the people and into a king without the actual title. He argued that a presidency becomes imperial when it relies on powers well outside those allowed by the Constitution of the United States.
The presidency was, according to Schlesinger, out of control with Congressional oversight rendered meaningless and ineffectual. Instead of a system of checks and balances upholding accountability, the Congress, the courts, the press, and the people have all been replaced by an accountability of only once each four years, during an election. The list of presidents that pushed the executive limits include the beloved Abe Lincoln, both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Yet, the changes have occurred slowly over time- mostly during the exigencies of wartime or national threat. In our time, Schlesinger observed, what appeared normal differs greatly from what was the original state of America.
Last week, perhaps the final chapter of that debate was written and it should have sent shock waves throughout the nation.
From Dick to Dick
Since 1973, the problem that Schlesinger outlined has become more and more pronounced. Each president added a little bit along the way.Disgraced Richard Nixon was outspoken about how he felt even after he was forced out of office. "When the president does it, it isn't illegal." he famously explained to David Frost The president is above the law. Clear and simple, no matter what the Constitution says.
Since the days of Nixon, Republicans, in particular, have long felt that the presidency demanded unlimited powers and oversight was a hindrance. Although Ronald Reagan never actually admitted it, he was very must a supporter of the imperial president.
The Iran–Contra affair was a case in point. When the funding of the Contras in Nicaragua by the government had been prohibited by Congress, Reagan went underground and sold weapons to Iran in order to covertly fund the right-wing paramilitary group bent on overthrowing the freely elected revolutionary government of Nicaragua. After the story broke, like Nixon before him, and Trump, after, Reagan used every possible means to obstruct Congressional investigations.
One of its biggest promoters of the imperial presidency in more recent times was Bush's vice-president Dick Cheney. As the New York Times pointed out in 2005,
In 2013, as yet another example, Republican Senator Tom Coburn (Okla.) made some nondescript allegations against the president not doing his job. When pressed to explain what he meant exactly he said that he didn't know if that rose to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' "but I think you're getting perilously close."
In Obama's second term, the label "imperial president" surfaced and- at least, in conservative circles- it stuck. For example, Ted Cruz wrote in 2014 in the Wall Street Journal:
Cruz and most Republicans were all but silent when Cheney had free rein. And Cruz's position about the dangers of imperial presidents has all but evaporated under the current administration. The once-outraged Cruz doesn't seem at all bothered by Trump's use of executive orders to enforce his own policies.
During the impeachment hearings, when the question of Trump's self-confessed abuse of presidential powers came to the forefront, Cruz felt no shame in "aggressively upped his profile as one of Trump’s most vocal defenders."
Last week's acquittal of the president by the Republican-led majority in the Senate was the final verdict on the imperial presidency debate. Senators voted on last Wednesday afternoon to acquit President Trump on two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
They refused to call witnesses- even those that Trump ordered to ignore the House subpoenas. Senators refused to allow corroborating evidence which would have made a not guilty decision impossible.
The Iran–Contra affair was a case in point. When the funding of the Contras in Nicaragua by the government had been prohibited by Congress, Reagan went underground and sold weapons to Iran in order to covertly fund the right-wing paramilitary group bent on overthrowing the freely elected revolutionary government of Nicaragua. After the story broke, like Nixon before him, and Trump, after, Reagan used every possible means to obstruct Congressional investigations.
One of its biggest promoters of the imperial presidency in more recent times was Bush's vice-president Dick Cheney. As the New York Times pointed out in 2005,
Virtually from the time he chose himself to be Mr. Bush's running mate in 2000, Dick Cheney has spearheaded an extraordinary expansion of the powers of the presidency -- from writing energy policy behind closed doors with oil executives to abrogating longstanding treaties and using the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq, scrap the Geneva Conventions and spy on American citizens.
And even before 9/11, Cheney made clear his opinion of executive oversight. In the summer of 2001, he gathered his energy industry cronies at secret meetings in Washington to rewrite energy policy to their specifications. When called upon to explain his secrecy, he objected. Were their conflicts of interest? That, according to the vice-president, was nobody's business. Not the business of Congress, not the business of journalists and certainly not the business of the American people.
After the terror attacks later that year, the American people could hardly have cared less about secret meetings and oil cartel cabals.
Torture, war-profiteering, and surveilling on American citizens without warrants were tacitly accepted by the majority if the result was enhanced national security.
The imperial presidency came one large step closer to replacing all vestige of the Republic as crafted by the Founding Fathers.
For Republicans. everything Obama did or said was worthy of impeachment. Left to the Republicans in Congress, Obama would have been removed for even the most comparatively trivial matters.
For example, in 2010, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) argued that offering Representative Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) a job to in the White House is an impeachable offense. Unfortunately for Rep. Issa, not only did the allegations never gain any traction with the media, but a few months later Issa was forced to take back his statement.
Never one to miss an opportunity, during the campaign, candidate Herman Cain claimed that the president's health care mandate was an impeachable offense. And he added the president order not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act was also an offense. In both cases, the Supreme Court gave big thumbs down to Cain's assertions.
After the terror attacks later that year, the American people could hardly have cared less about secret meetings and oil cartel cabals.
Torture, war-profiteering, and surveilling on American citizens without warrants were tacitly accepted by the majority if the result was enhanced national security.
The imperial presidency came one large step closer to replacing all vestige of the Republic as crafted by the Founding Fathers.
History's Hypocrites
However, when Democrats stepped into the White House, somebody remarkable occurred. The very same RepublicansThat demanded a strong leader- unhindered by citizen and human rights laws, by international law and popular opinion- turned hypocrites, warning about Obama's lack of constraint. In the flash, it was the "lawless" Obama- not Cheney- who was the imperial president.For Republicans. everything Obama did or said was worthy of impeachment. Left to the Republicans in Congress, Obama would have been removed for even the most comparatively trivial matters.
For example, in 2010, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) argued that offering Representative Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) a job to in the White House is an impeachable offense. Unfortunately for Rep. Issa, not only did the allegations never gain any traction with the media, but a few months later Issa was forced to take back his statement.
Never one to miss an opportunity, during the campaign, candidate Herman Cain claimed that the president's health care mandate was an impeachable offense. And he added the president order not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act was also an offense. In both cases, the Supreme Court gave big thumbs down to Cain's assertions.
In Obama's second term, the label "imperial president" surfaced and- at least, in conservative circles- it stuck. For example, Ted Cruz wrote in 2014 in the Wall Street Journal:
Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat.
During the impeachment hearings, when the question of Trump's self-confessed abuse of presidential powers came to the forefront, Cruz felt no shame in "aggressively upped his profile as one of Trump’s most vocal defenders."
... Cruz appeared in a dozen national television and radio interviews and delivered a blistering speech before the conservative-faithful at the Heritage Foundation, forcefully defending Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainians and dismissing the Democratic impeachment proceedings as unconstitutional.Suddenly, according to Cruz's latest position, Congressional oversight of the president is somehow "unconstitutional."
Trump's Triumph
In a move that might have given George Orwell a sardonic smirk, leading conservative magazine and website, National Review wrote as Trump took office in January 2017:
[S]olidifying the imperial presidency is President Obama’s real legacy — contrary to what he sees his legacy to be. Democrats have only themselves to blame for all the powers President-elect Donald Trump will have when he is in office.Trump's subsequent lawlessness, his disregard for the limits to his powers were all Obama's fault. In fairness, the National Review should not be ridiculed excessively. At the time the article was published, Trump still hadn't delivered his inaugural address. Who could have ever reckoned that Trump would have been so openly criminal?
Last week's acquittal of the president by the Republican-led majority in the Senate was the final verdict on the imperial presidency debate. Senators voted on last Wednesday afternoon to acquit President Trump on two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
They refused to call witnesses- even those that Trump ordered to ignore the House subpoenas. Senators refused to allow corroborating evidence which would have made a not guilty decision impossible.
And so the outcome was inevitable.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said as the news broke:
"Sadly, because of the Republican Senate's betrayal of the Constitution, the president remains an ongoing threat to American democracy, with his insistence that he is above the law and that he can corrupt the elections if he wants to."The larger debate is now officially over, it seems. The precedent has been set. Republicans cannot return to the good old days, playing both sides of the issue, depending on which party is holding the executive branch position. From now on, the president, regardless of party, is unbound by oversight. What that means for the Republic in the post-Trump era, we cannot know.
God help the nation.
