Why the U.S. Executive Branch Is a Clear and Present Danger to Our Democracy

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/why-us-executive-branch-clear-and-present-danger-our-democracy

Edward Snowden's revelations have illuminated the most critical political issue facing America today: how an authoritarian U.S. Executive Branch which has focused on war abroad for the last 50 years now devotes increasing resources to surveillance, information management, and population control at home, posing a far greater threat to Americans' liberties than any conceivable foreign foe.

Snowden's view of the basic issue is that "I don't want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship,is recorded. That's not something I'm willing to live under."

Whether millions of other Americans accept the new surveillance status quo will determine the future not only of privacy but democracy in this nation. For even the critical issue of U.S. government of surveillance is only a part of a far larger pattern of undemocratic and unaccountable Executive Branch behavior, at home and abroad. The problem is not only that the Executive Branch operates in antidemocratic secrecy, with an “ Insider Threat Program” that even requires its employees to inform on each other or risk losing their jobs. It has also subverted the Congress, judiciary and mass media, so that they no longer provide constitutionally mandated checks and balances, and are instead largely today extensions of Executive power.

How do you feel about the fact that as you read these words the U.S. Executive Branch is storing information about your phone calls and Internet messages which, even years from now, could be used to embarrass, control and/or harass you, defeat you in an election, cause you to lose a job, break up your marriage, or even threaten you with imprisonment? Many say “I have nothing to worry about, I’m not a Muslim terrorist.” But this displays a naïve complacency about the massive pools of data the Executive is collecting that have nothing to do with protecting us from a relative handful of Muslim terrorists, and could easily be misused by secret and unaccountable government agencies in the future.

[marmar]

1. k/r.

[Laelth]

2. I had hoped that President Obama would begin to dismantle the "unitary executive."

Instead, he has doubled-down on it. I suspect that there are institutional forces beyond his control that made it near-impossible for him to act against the increasing power of the Executive Branch. Be that as it may, the fact is that our Executive Branch is more powerful than ever, and I agree that this development is a threat to our Constitutional framework.

-Laelth

[polichick]

28. I had the same hope - that's why I think he should hire Snowden...

and turn the whole thing around. It would be an incredibly bold move - maybe even dangerous - but a start.

[Heidi]

3. Kick!

P.S.

[xchrom]

5. good morning, miss heidi!

i'm ready for the warm weather this week.

[Heidi]

6. I'm lovin' the pearls, dah-ling!

[xchrom]

8. you are too kind!

[postulater]

18. Irish dancer? How did you place at Nationals last week?

[cali]

4. k&r. this is depressingly true

[pnwmom]

7. Yeah, right. So much worse than the Repub House. n/t

[Progressive dog]

9. It's awful, let's just get rid of the executive branch

and let the Congress and the states handle everything. That will work out well, I'm sure.

[TheKentuckian]

11. There is no stop possible between there and Cheney's Unitary Executive?

Is there so little imagination available that a person can't picture any other possibilities, including historic norms.

[Progressive dog]

14. Of course there is, but the OP was an

attack on the executive, calling our president "authoritarian."

including historic norms.

If you want historic norms, in the US, then prepare to cede more power to the state(s), not less. If you mean worldwide "historic norms", then you won't be worrying about going to vote anymore.

[zipplewrath]

20. Bit of a false dichotomy doncha think?

The original model conceived for the federal government didn't have such a powerful central executive. Truth is, it was presumed that the congress would tend to "run things". Remember, the government was basically created by a bunch of legislators. It is why the Library of Congress is run by congress, and not the executive branch. Even Jefferson perceived congress as more of the central governing authority, so he gave his books to congress. When he bought Louisiana, he originally intended that congress would "approve" the purchase. It really wasn't until FDR that we saw the kind of central executive that we see today. Even Wilson took along Senators to negotiate a peace treaty in France, because the senate would have to approve any treaty. (He then ignored them to a great deal and screwed the pooch on the whole "League of Nations" thingy).

Most nations don't have the kind of central executive that we have. Parliaments tend to run things through a prime minister who is constantly subject to votes of no confidence. They don't have to impeach them as we do. Bush could have been "brought to heal" through the mere threat of a no confidence vote. And cabinet members tend to be elected members of the parliament. There are other structures that would change the balance. Heck, the original constitution considered having the AG be a separately elected office for a while.

The war powers act have really screwed up the relations between congress and the executive branch. It needs to be fixed. But it is very difficult to do because most presidents can't be forced to sign such legislation. Either constitutional amendments, or potentially a proper court case between the executive and congressional branches might achieve something similar.

[Progressive dog]

23. No I don't

Most nations don't have the kind of central executive that we have. Parliaments tend to run things through a prime minister who is constantly subject to votes of no confidence.

We have had an executive since the Constitution was written. Most of the parliamentary systems had a hereditary king as an executive. The USA has a separate executive because the founding fathers believed that it was necessary to separate the executive and legislative powers. I think they were right, our government has lasted a alot longer than most.
Chamberlain could have been kicked out before the "peace in our time" negotiations, but he wasn't. He hung around until Poland got over run. Bush had the votes for the authorization to use force against Iraq. In fact, laws require a majority of lawmakers to pass.

Bush could have been "brought to heal" through the mere threat of a no confidence vote

BTW Jefferson was paid for his books.

[zipplewrath]

25. But not this kind of executive

We have had an executive branch, be we only had this kind of executive since FDR. And the truth be known, this kind of executive grew out of the cold war as much as anything. The whole "red button" schtick and the need for extreme responses in 20 minutes or less left us with a president that the founders would never have dreamed. Now that we've morphed into the "War on Terror" we've got an executive that can and does justify literally everything from the indefinite detention of anyone without trial, to the execution of civilians without trial, appeal, or consequence. And the only consequence left to the congress is impeachment. That was never really envisioned by the constitution.

[cantbeserious]

10. Thank You - Well Said

eom

[grantcart]

12. lol

"I don't want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship,is recorded."


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

13. Oh, brother.

[SidDithers]

15. Dumbass article...nt

Sid

[Narkos]

26. Agreed, this shit is getting nuts

[JoePhilly]

16. Why would we give the same scary government described in this article ...

control of health care?

If the government knew about one's treatment for addiction, STDs, or other illenesses, would they not use that information "to embarrass, control and/or harass you, defeat you in an election, cause you to lose a job, break up your marriage, or even threaten you with imprisonment?"

[RC]

19. You think they don't already know, just from the hoovering of the rest of the digital information?

You would rather pay a parasitical middleman to stand between you and your health care? A middleman that has their bottom line paramount over your health care?

[ProSense]

17. Rand Paul 2016

Kill the executive branch.

Rand Paul Outlines Budget Plan At CPAC

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Thursday outlined the basics of a budget plan he will release this month to balance the budget in five years. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget released this week attempts to acomplish that goal in 10 years.

"My budget eliminates the Department of Education," Paul said at Conservative Political Action Conference to much applause.

He continued: "My five-year budget will create millions of jobs by cutting the corporate income tax in half by creating a flat personal income tax of 17 percent and cutting the regulations that are strangling American business. The only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rand-paul-outlines-budget-plan-at-cpac

More proposals from Paul's budget:

Eliminate the Government Printing Office
Eliminate the Agriculture Research Service
Eliminate the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Eliminate the Foreign Agriculture Service
Block Grant Food Stamps and Child Nutrition Program
Eliminate the Department of Commerce; transfer the Bureau of the Census, the Patent and Trademark Office, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the International Trade Administration to other appropriate agencies.
Eliminate the Department of Energy; transfer the Atomic Energy Agency and all nuclear research laboratories to re-established Atomic Energy Commission
Block grant Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Privatize the Transportation Security Administration (Remember Paul's litte charade with the TSA? Who could have guessed?)
Collect delinquent taxes from federal employees
Reduce the amount of travel by federal employees
Repeal the Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Law
Sell federal lands
Reform the implementation and oversight of government payments; reduce Improper Payments
Open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for Oil and Gas Exploration
Permit the Keystone pipeline

http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/A%20Platform%20to%20Revitalize%20America.pdf

Stupid, it's what's for dinner.

[cali]

21. So why are you serving up such a heaping helping of it?

No one is suggesting Rand Paul for President. That is what one calls a straw man and combined with being a red herring; yum, yum.

What people are discussing is the Unitary Presidency which has grown under every President since Reagan.

Ah, the good old days when DU could criticize it without being served the unsavory helping of what you are offering up.

[Liberal1975]

22. In fact...

The fact that curbing executive power so that it regains balance with the other branches of government is viewed as an attack on the Dept of Education and the like is kind of part of the problem, if you ask me.

Not wanting an executive accumulating more and more power does not make me a libertarian who hates government.

[JoeyT]

30. Yeah, and Dick Cheney was in favor of expanding it.

As was George Bush.

Guilt by association doesn't work when there are scumbags on both sides. Paul is a vile little man, but at least he didn't murder tens of thousands of people.

[gtar100]

24. It seems at this point all three of our branches of government are a clear and present danger to our

democracy. But I would put the judicial branch at the top of the list of the worst of the worst.

Even our "fourth estate" is corrupted which puts us in even more a world of hurt.

The problem as I see it is that the laws of this country were designed to protect the wealthy from the very beginning and the ideals of equality and justice for all have been used to get an otherwise unruly lower class to support the efforts of the wealthy. When our ideals were taken more seriously, i.e., the abolition of slavery, the New Deal, advances in women's rights and the Voting Rights Act, the strengthening of Unions, labor laws, etc., the slow, methodical dismantling of each and every one of these advances shows just what these rich people are really after. Our government has become nothing more than a circus of self-interest. The Progressive Caucus is about the last hope we have of returning it back to any sense of normalcy. If I'm not mistaken, they are about the only group willing to put forth legislation to curb the onslaught to our civil liberties and reign in the executive branch and all the others. But at the root of all of our problems are wealthy people willing to use our government for their own personal gain.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. knr

[hootinholler]

29. I am much more worried about Evil Brazillianaire Overlords buying access now than

I am about some future secret threat.

This is the sort of thing that would allow them to gain the edge in trading, negotiations, lobbying, etc. To think that they don't or haven't had people tracking down who has access in order to target them for subversion, is madness.