OK all My Pretty Partisans! Convince me. . .

[annabanana]

Gore no More; Alas Kucinich we hardly knew ye; Adios Edwards. .

I specifically want to know what either Hillary or Obama have said about; The Department of Justice; The "Unitary Presidency" and The Supreme Court.

I know that power, once conferred, is seldom relinquished. Will either or both of them specifically refrain from carrying forward the vast extension of Presidential Power that B*sh has gathered to himself? Have either of them made any remarks regarding "signing statements"?

Enlighten me!

[lvx35]

1. I prefer the term "sub-partisan"

"Partisan" implies that we are unified with a party, which is clearly not the case here... ;)

[BootinUp]

2. Early in the campaign Hillary said she would give back

powers to Congress that Bush had abused. I will look for a quote.

[BootinUp]

3. Heres an article about giving up powers Bush abused

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SF2IC80&show_article=1

NEW YORK (AP) - If elected president in 2008, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would consider giving up some of the executive powers President Bush and Vice President Cheney have assumed since taking office.
In an interview published Tuesday in Guardian America, a Web site run by the London-based Guardian newspaper, Clinton denounced the Bush Administration's push to concentrate more power in the White House as a "power grab" not supported by the Constitution.

Asked if she would consider giving up some of those powers if she were president, Clinton replied, "Oh, absolutely ... I mean, that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that."

Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush and Cheney have taken several steps to expand presidential authority and diminish the role of Congress and the federal judiciary. Among other things, they have pushed for warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects and the use of "signing statements" to justify ignoring or defying laws enacted by Congress.

[Emit]

6. And here's a different take on the same original article

The article piece you posted and the following is based on this article, entitled 'I'm going to have to review everything they've done': Hillary Clinton talks to Guardian America editor Michael Tomasky, Tuesday October 23, 2007, Guardian Unlimited


The following is unbossed.com's take on the interview:

~snip~

The most striking answer was to the first question, which had been intended (we're told) to evoke some candid thoughts: Which of the powers of the president that George Bush has assumed would you relinquish?

Clinton hemms and haws about having to look into the matter after she takes office. Chiz.

Here's that section of the interview:

I want to start with some questions about foreign policy and terrorism. If you become president you'll enter the White House with far more power than, say, your husband had. What is your view of this? And what specific powers might you relinquish as president, or renegotiate with Congress - for example the power to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant?

Well, I think it is clear that the power grab undertaken by the Bush-Cheney administration has gone much further than any other president and has been sustained for longer. Other presidents, like Lincoln, have had to take on extraordinary powers but would later go to the Congress for either ratification or rejection. But when you take the view that they're not extraordinary powers, but they're inherent powers that reside in the office and therefore you have neither obligation to request permission nor to ask for ratification, we're in a new territory here. And I think that I'm gonna have to review everything they've done because I've been on the receiving end of that. There were a lot of actions which they took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted or that in my view that was inherent in the constitution. There were other actions they've taken which could have obtained congressional authorization but they deliberately chose not to pursue it as a matter of principle.

I guess I'm asking, can a president, once in the White House, actually give up some of this power in the name of constitutional principle?

Oh, absolutely, Michael. I mean that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.

~snip~

"I think I'm gonna have to review everything they've done..." Why review? Hasn't the Senator from New York been paying sufficient attention during the last 6 years that she can declare definitively that she'll renounce powers that George W. Bush assumed? The question was not "Will you think about it?", but "What specific powers might you relinquish?".

"they took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted or that in my view that was inherent in the constitution." Taking actions without authority is merely the nub end of the problem. The real problem is that Bush takes actions that violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

It should have been relatively easy for Clinton to list a long series of presidential "powers" that she would renounce. In fact, Tomasky feeds her one suggestion in the question itself: the "power to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant". Yet Hillary Clinton cannot bring herself to identify a single power that she's definitely prepared to renounce before taking the oath to protect and uphold the Constitution.

~snip~

http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1793

And for the sake of discussion and further clarification of Tomasky's comments, here's more from the article:

~snip~

Tomasky also tried and failed to get Clinton to provide him with a single example of when she staked out a controversial position in favor of any progressive cause. As he remarks in a commentary on the interview:

One major concern of liberals about Clinton is her preternatural caution as a politician-her general unwillingness to stick her neck out and risk political capital in behalf of a progressive policy goal that wasn't a safe issue. I asked her to name one issue during her Senate tenure on which she'd done this. Answer: "Well, I think, you know, voting against funding. What did we get, 12, 13, 14 votes on that?" She was referring to a vote last May to make emergency supplemental appropriations to the Iraq war effort. The measure passed 80-14. Clinton and her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, both voted no, announcing their votes very late in the process.

This, of course, wasn't really what I meant. By the time of this vote, she was in full presidential campaign mode and trying to establish her bona fides with the party's anti-war base. So the political risk inherent in this vote was small. Indeed it was Joe Biden, who was the only senator/presidential candidate to vote yea, who risked something politically, whatever one thinks of his vote substantively.

After I followed up, Clinton went into a defence of how progressive her voting record was; but again, this wasn't what I meant. I was asking about examples of leadership. So the answer to the question was that there really wasn't one thing that she could think of on which she'd taken a risk in behalf of a progressive policy end.

To be more precise, Clinton rejects the very premise that progressives have reason to think she's an "overly cautious politician":

Well, you know I've made so many votes, Mike, and I've tried to vote as I thought was the right thing to do, and if you look at my voting record as it's evaluated by most of the progressive organizations that look at voting records, I have a very, very high percentage of having voted with them, so I don't quite know what their concern is.

To be perfectly candid, I'm not one of those progressives who think Hillary Clinton is overly cautious. I'm a liberal.

[BootinUp]

7. nit pick. nt

[Emit]

10. no, not really.

Just offering a different view on the same interview. Personally, I would refer the OPer to the original source article. The Breitbart one that you posted was a bit scant on substance.

Edited to add, and I doubt you had time to really read all that I posted, including the links.

[BootinUp]

13. sure it is. nt

[BootinUp]

4. Here is Hillarys plan for DOJ reform and Civil Rights

Promoting Civil Rights and Fighting Discrimination in the 21st Century


Today in Charleston, SC, Hillary Clinton will announce her agenda to fight discrimination as President and to restore the federal government’s historic role as a champion of civil rights. She will focus on renewing and strengthening the Department of Justice’s civil rights mission. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. It also marks the seventh year of a concerted effort by the Bush Administration to turn the Civil Rights Division away from its historical mission and its traditions of professionalism, and toward an agenda driven by partisanship, cronyism, and ideology. As President, Hillary Clinton will take five specific steps to undo the damage done under President Bush and Attorney Generals Gonzales and Ashcroft, to advance civil rights, and to end discrimination.

1. Save the Civil Rights Division from eight years of the Bush Administration. Hillary will:

Direct the Attorney General to submit – within 90 days of taking office – a report that recommends how to rebuild DOJ’s traditional role in defending civil rights and the rule of law, and that reviews charges of improper, politically motivated hiring to determine whether laws were broken.
Restore professionalism and remove politics from hiring, case deliberations, and policy decisions across the Department of Justice.
Increase funding for the Civil Rights Division by $30 million.
2. Help local school districts pursue voluntary integration and reduce racial inequality, in the face of a reactionary Supreme Court. Hillary will:

Direct the Attorney General to appoint teams of EOE (Equal Opportunity in Education) consultants and deploy them to advise local school districts who want to design the most effective and proactive voluntary integration programs permitted under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
Provide $10 million to help school districts implement these plans.
3. Strengthen our voting laws so that every citizen can fully exercise his or her constitutional right to vote. Hillary will:

Sign the Count Every Vote Act into law.
Combat voter ID laws that have a disproportionate negative impact on minorities.
Extend voting rights to citizens of D.C.
4. Combat ongoing racial and sex discrimination in the labor market by improving laws and expanding enforcement. Hillary will:

Fully fund and reverse the staffing cuts to the EEOC and strengthen the employment section of the Civil Rights Division.
Sign into law the Paycheck Fairness Act to end gender discrimination in pay.
5. Modernize and strengthen the federal hate crimes law. Hillary will:

Sign into law the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

more here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3306

[annabanana]

5. Thank you! I would hope that she'd also direct her attention even further

down the civil-service totem pole... I'd sure like the Lurita Jones's of the government purged.

[rug]

8. I think Obama will give you hope and Clinton will give you affirmation

or something like that.

I don't see either of them giving you peace in their term.

[racaulk]

9. Get off your lazy ass, go do your own damn research and convince yourself!

:sarcasm:

Somebody's gonna say it, I may as well be first. ;)

I'm with you, Gore, then Kucinich, then Edwards, although with the exception of Gore, I was never firmly behind anyone. My primary is tomorrow and I am totally undecided. Although, since I live in Georgia, I think the fact that Obama is going to win is already a foregone conclusion, so I don't know that my vote will really matter anyway. I'm hoping something will happen to inspire me, but I have yet to be inspired by either of the two frontrunners.

Best of luck! :hi:

[K Gardner]

11. I'm sorry.. but WTF is it with all these "convince me" threads. Not my job. YOUR job as a

responsible citizen/voter. Otherwise, don't vote, please.

[Stephanie]

21. If you had a case to make, you would make it.

If you can't defend your candidate why bother responding?

[FlyingSquirrel]

25. Depends on whether you're in a caucus or primary system

If you're in a caucus system, it's perfectly acceptable to go there as an undecided and ask others to convince you to vote for their candidate of choice.

And if you're not in a caucus system, what's wrong with going to DU and asking others to convince you before you vote in a primary system?

JMO

[MH1]

12. Obama

covers some problems of executive power here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

Excerpts:

The Problem

Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

Wasteful Spending is Out of Control: The current administration has abused its power by handing out contracts without competition to its politically connected friends and supporters. These abuses cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year.

...

Barack Obama's Plan

Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks

* Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.
* Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.
* End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.
* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
* Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Bring Americans Back into their Government

* Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies.
* Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.
* Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.
* Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.

Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence

* Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.
* Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution.
* Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency's mission.

I don't think this is exactly what you were looking for. I know he has talked about the specific areas you mention, but I'll have to look for those.

[lisainmilo]

15. One of the main reasons I have made the switch to Obama! n/t

[VolcanoJen]

23. Nice!!!

:thumbsup:

[Emit]

14. Did you mean to write "Petty" or "Pretty"?

:shrug:

[annabanana]

16. Oh I meant "Pretty". . I love you all.. . .n/t

[Emit]

19. These are excellent questions in your OP, problem is

Obama v. Clinton is in full swing now -- understandably so, given it's primary season.

The unprecedented power grab of Bush & Co. with their take on UE and signing statements, the likelihood of the next POTUS nominating to the SCOTUS, and the unethical and unlawful politicization of the DoJ (that seems to be all but forgotten, btw) are subjects these two candidates rarely address, it appears.

Nevertheless, as merely just a lowly voter, I, too, would like to know what our now top two Democratic candidates say on the matter.

[racaulk]

18. LOL

I had the same question when I saw the OP.

:rofl:

[Coexist]

17. Yes, they both have made remarks re: signing statements:

"Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/?page=2

Question 4
Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Barack Obama
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

Hillary Clinton
I have opposed the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements, and as President, I would not use signing statements to disagree on policy grounds with legislation passed by Congress or as an end run around the veto. I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.



read this:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/question1/

Question 9
Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
Barack Obama
Disagree strongly.

Hillary Clinton
I disagree with Attorney General Gonzales. I have long believed that the right to habeas corpus offers fundamental protection against unchecked government power. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The Supreme Court should reaffirm this principle in the Boumediene case now pending and correct the mistake Congress made when it attempted to rescind habeas corpus through the Military Commissions Act.


and then click on the Question 2, Question 3, etc. The candidates answers are in a VERY easy to follow format.

Happy reading!

[Emit]

20. Thanks for the link, FLDem5

We've already caucused in my state, but this will be useful for many undecideds, perhaps.

This part was a gas:


Question 1 - 12
...

Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani declined to answer this question.

Mike Huckabee
Huckabee declined to answer this question.

Fred Thompson
Thompson declined to answer this question

[annabanana]

22. Thank you very much. There is some good info in this thread..n/t

[annabanana]

24. (not crazy about EITHER of their statements about executive priv.)

question 6