Conservatives: Do you wish to keep the executive powers if a Democrat wins the next presidential election?

Question

In the last 6 years, there has been many changes to the way the government functions and the executive branch in particular. Topics like the Patriot Act, writ of habeas corpus, executive orders, executive privilege, and signing statements have re-shaped the scope of the executive branch.

This question is not meant to start a debate on these topics, but raise a hypothetical question. If a Democrat wins the next presidential election, and the Democrats continue to control Congress and the House, do you want the executive branch to have the same powers as now? For example, would you support a Democratic President in a warrantless wiretapping program? Suspending habeas corpus for "enemy combatants"? Etc?

I ask this question to conservatives because they are more likely to support Bush on these topics, but anyone can answer. Or if you don't support them now, would you support them for a Democrat (for democrats)?

I would rather have people who support the current rights and actions of Bush answer this.

Lastly, I genuinely looking for people's thoughts on this, so lets keep it mature.

dojoman: you seem to be debating the usefullness of these topics, and rather they are good or not. That wasn't the question. Also, in WW2, we imprisoned Japanese Americans simply because of their race. I can't tell if you are saying this is good or bad.

Answer 1

I think that we are missing the main point here. Regardless of who is in power, should this person have the right to virtually do whatever he wishes? Answer: No. That is pretty simple. There are ways to stop a president from doing this within the House and the Senate. To be completely honest, I would want a Democrat to have the same powers that Bush has simply because that is the fair thing to do. I do not necessarily want a Democrat in office, but I do not completely agree with some of the actions that Bush has taken. If necessary, though, a president should be able to instill rules not deemed normally acceptable in times of crisis or fear for national security. I believe that Bush's intentions were good. History will show that Bush is mild in his execution of executive powers.

All in all, yes, a Democrat should be allowed the same powers as Bush or any other president.

Answer 2

First, the Patriot Act is the only new change. Every president has used the others in various ways to fit the circumstances of the time. Writ of habeas corpus was used by Lincoln and FDR. Clinton used executive order in the No ask, No tell policy of gays in the military and executive privilege on many occasions when called before Congress. These have always been a struggle between the Congress and Presidency as to where the boundaries lie and is usually determined by the Supreme Court.

I would support a Democratic president using these methods of challenging the Congress because it is part of the checks and balance system set up in the Constitution. I also support the Congress trying to curtail it at every step. That is the real beauty of our system. Each branch tries to keep the other in line.

Answer 3

Believing that our nation is even a fraction of a bit safer than it was in 2001 is complete Republican spewed nonsense that is a fear-inducing excuse to keep people voting for their flawed policies. My God, I don't understand why people don't see this for what it is. We are no more safe now than we were 6 years ago. There was a plotted attack in the New York City subway systems last year that would've went through (it was a chemical attack), but the "terrorists" as so many are classifying this group of people, canceled it last minute. The United States had no information about this until AFTER they cancelled it. I am so sick of people being lulled into a false sense of security by assuming that Republicans are the only party that want to protect America. While we're at it, let's protect America from all the gays and immigrants, too. Because, you know, election issues like gay marriage and abortion are far more important than, say, feeding the starving in our country, or the war that has no point. You can't go into a country who has been warring for longer than our country has even existed, and expect to change things so quickly. The "terrorists" are an unseen terror, and you're just as stupid as Bush is if you think you can "beat" terrorism.

Answer 4

For some reason, Democrats and liberals always seem to forget just how bad their President was when he is out of office. No one remembers that Clinton let 98 attorneys go, just to put in his own. But that's OK, because the attorney is there for him, and he has to trust them.

Please try to remember also, how Clinton used Executive Privilege to derail the murder investigation, and the land deal investigation, and the Rose Law billing (Hillary is quite good at the "I Don't Recall" mantra, the same thing Libby said).

If a Democrat wins the executive office next year, I would support his decisions to defend our freedom. If he taps your phone, and discovers your plan to take over the worlds oil supplies, but it was done without a warrant, I would still support his decision to imprison you. If he taps your phone, and discovers your plan to take over the HOA and allow purple houses in the neighborhood, so he sends in the Secret Service to thwart your plan, and drag you off to live the rest of your natural life in solitary confinement; I'd have to ask, how bad was the shade of purple?

Answer 5

to address just one point: suspension of habeas corpus and secret/warrantless searches are unconstitutional. period. Republican or Democrat, a president that violates the letter or the spirit of the constitution (even if he or she does so "legally" as provided by congress and upheld by the courts) is at best going against the intentions of our founding fathers and damaging the sovereignty of the people and at worst a traitor to their country. In America the Constitution IS the law; not a particular body, party, or person. Anyone that doesn't support upholding the Constitution in its entirety cannot truely call themselves an American.

Answer 6

No

Ron Paul will not need those powers. Once he cleans up Washington we can start to focus on America again and not the constant fear of retarded terror attacks by uneducated third world country towel heads living in mud huts and caves with the 20 year old AK47's.

By the way Dr. Ron Paul is the only one who voted against both the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

He votes no against anything that is unConstitutional to the citizens of the United States - that's why they call him Dr. No in Congress. He is a fighter for the Constitution

The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself!

It weakens a Nation and strips us of our Freedoms and Liberties!

This Nation would never had been formed if it wasn't for dissent against the King!

Dissent stirs the souls of the population and restores rational thinking!

The facts are all there and well documented for history - I know where I will stand in the reflection of future history.

Answer 7

Executive privileges are part of the perks of being the president of the greatest nation in the world. One can only hope that the president would not abuse the powers. President Clinton had the same powers as president bush. they both abused it to some degree. By doing so, they have only made the people question theirs and their party's credibility.

Any body in power will be attacked relentlessly. You need those executive privileges to avoid frivolous investigation and probes. there is no reason to remove them no matter which party is in power

Answer 8

I am not a fan of the effects of the Patriot act but I do like the intent. I really haven't support these programs for fear of what they can bring so I guess as a Republican I would continue to not support them.

Answer 9

executive privilege is extended to ALL presidents and would require an amendment to the constitution to rescind...and if we are still at war when a democrat regains the presidency, and that democrat president wants to monitor enemy communications as bush is doing, i would have no problem with that president as i have no problem with the current presidents position on the enemy.

it looks to me like you do NOT have a firm grasp of this issue...go back to ww2 and see what fdr did with his executive privilege...or what bj did with his during kosovo...

Answer 10

Yes.