Any citations or quotes regarding Obama rescinding unitary executive authority?

[RestoreGore]

Since so many think Obama the "frontrunner" now after these crap debates that do nothing but showcase their egos and petty squabbles, here are a few more: are there any citations regarding the Palestinian people who are being summarily tortured by the Israeli government or any citations regarding why both sides of that conflict have not been discussed? Because on this Obama comes through as just another AIPAC approved status quo Democrat or Republican, and that will do nothing to bring peace.

Any talk of impeaching Bush or even calling for a trial after his "term"? Any talk of rescinding the Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act? The Real ID Act? The Homegrown Terrorist Act? Bush's Directive 51 that gives him dictatorial powers in a time of "catastrophe" that HE deems a "catastrophe? Any talk about closing the detention camps being built by Halliburton?" Guantanamo?

Any talk at all by any of them regarding what must be done first before we can take back our Democracy? Any talk about DIEBOLD? Any talk about REALLY restoring the Constitution besides BS speeches and debates?

You see, we aren't getting any healthcare changes in four years. Nothing will happen of any real " change" in the next four years because it will take that long or even longer to really clean up the criminal mess Bush and his accomplices left behind that the Congress which Obama and Clinton and McCain are part of allowed to take place with our blessing as a people for the last eight years.

So, any citaitions or quotes from either of them pledging as well that when they say they will take troops out of Iraq if they really do that they will not send them elsewhere and that Obama for all his talk about "change" will not use a nuclear weapon (since he supports nuclear) to attack Pakistan is appreciated too. Oh, and also what HIS interpretation of "adequate intelligence" means in his assessment of attacking a country that never attacked us as well.

And one question for the supporters of both: Will you hold them to the same standards that you did Bush even though you apporve of Bush not being held accountable for his crimes? Because if in your heart the answer to that question is no, you don't put your country first you put your party first, and that is what got us here in the first place.

[RestoreGore]

1. Now watch this be ignored...

Because people simply don't want to face that should the next "president" not rescind this authority they are no better than he was. And I need to see the words stating they will. I think this campaign is nothing but smoke and mirrors to divert people from exactly these issues. You cannot restore the constitution if you don't rescind unitary executive first.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Gee, you gave your flame bait all of eight minutes before you started pouting.

I'm now regretting that I responded at all...

[RestoreGore]

5. Valid questions are not flamebait just becaue you are too ignorant to answer them

[Demagitator]

6. Exactly...

Modern day politics only goal is to a create a -- diversion; so that the real powers-that-be can control things. They don't give a shit if its called a democracy, or totalitarian form of government.

[RestoreGore]

32. yes, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

The sad thing is that so many don't.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Other than the stupidity about impeaching Bush, yes.

Impeaching Bush is not a function of the US Senate.

Check his website for the rest.

Is it really necessary that we do your leg work for you? And, no, it is not the obligation of Obama supporters to prop up the ignorant who flatly refuse to educate themselves.

[RestoreGore]

4. What a BS response

If you can't Cite it as a supporter it isn't there, because if it was and you cared about it, you would put it there. And NO, you don't have to do my LEGWORK for me because I already know what a phony dog and pony show this all is. NONE of this has been covered in debates, and NONE of it has been publicly discussed in speeches by these "candidates" to my knowledge so I thought there was some information some supporters would give here. OH, and thanks for ignoring the last question and the usual NASTY bs response here. It seems to be par for the course here these days which is really telling regarding what is truly important.

[Buzz Clik]

10. I will NOT cite it because I grow weary of playing fetch for trolls.

Do your own work.

This approach of "I never heard of it, so it doesn't exist" is a typical disruption approach. I won't play other than to point it out.

[RestoreGore]

23. Do you realize it is against the rules of this site to call a member a troll when they aren't?

So just what is your problem? Why haven't they stated anything PUBLICLY about these abuses and righting them? About the detention centers that when posted about here got on the list and then forgotten? About the directives? Are you too afraid to respond to admit THERE ARE NO ANSWERS FROM THEM? For eight years we have done nothing but bitch about the constitutional abuses of this regime and rightfully so. So now that you think you will get your man in there it doesn't matter any more? This should be about Americans CARING ABOUT THEIR COUNTRY, and that means holding ALL of their feet to the fire on these bills that have taken away precious civil liberties and tha tneed to be revised and repealed. I don't then NEED YOU to fetch anything for me nor did I ask YOU. It is obvious you don't give two farts in the breeze whether Obama or Clinton would carry on these policies in this country as long as they are Democrats. It should be easy for you as an American to say you would not tolerate that, but you can't. We truly then have gone through the looking glass and you have shown your true colors.

[Marie26]

41. More like cannot. nt

[sendero]

7. Who cares?

The standard we're measuring against is HRC, not some perfect ideal straw man you've created.

It would be hard to Obama to be worse on ME policy than HRC, who cannot even come out for getting our troops home.

[RestoreGore]

24. I care as do many others

And some people better get wise to that before November.

[Birthmark]

8. I just checked Obama's website

I see nothing about rescinding Bush's "Unitary Executive" power grabs. I think that you are correct. That is the biggest issue facing us. A "Unitary Executive" is very little different from a monarchy.

[Buzz Clik]

9. So, Hillary and Obama are running for Queen and King of the US?

Oh. Ok.

[Birthmark]

12. Snappy comeback

Of course you've completely failed to address the topic or indicate where I'm wrong. But you were smug and sarcastic...and that's really the thing, isn't it? Got anything relevant?

[Buzz Clik]

15. "Unitary executive" is a catch phrase for conspiracy theorists.

Why would Obama address this directly? He mentions specific points about the Bush administration's infringement on the Constitution all the time. The simple "fact" that your very thorough search of the Obama website (assuming you did the search at all) yielded nothing on unitary executive is meaningless.

Where does Obama stand on MIHOP? LIHOP? What? He says NOTHING!!!! OMG -- Obama was in on 9/11!!!!!111oneoneone

:eyes:

[Birthmark]

17. So, you've got nothing but vague accusations.

Oh, and ignorance. Let's not leave your ignorance out.

Example: You said, "'Unitary executive' is a catch phrase for conspiracy theorists."

You are wrong.

The theory of the unitary executive is a radical vision of executive power in which the president is the big boss of the entire executive branch and has final say over everything that happens within it. At its core, the theory holds that Congress has very limited authority to divest the president of those powers. An expanded version of this theory was the legal predicate for the torture memo: "In light of the president's complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority in these areas. … Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
http://www.slate.com/id/2164751/

Guess you'll have to find some other aspersion to cast. Good luck! lol

[Buzz Clik]

18. ..

[Political Heretic]

21. Wow that's just completely non-factual.

Unitary executive theory is a theory of constitutional interpretation. It's not a "conspiracy theory" at all.

There's nothing about Bush's power grap that is a conspiracy theory. The administration itself, publicly declares that it operates from the theory of the Unitary Executive.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=10516

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive_Branch_Decide_0923.html

[Peace Patriot]

20. No, they're running for Emperor. nt

[RestoreGore]

25. It sure makes me uncomfortable

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great quote and totally apropos here. But don't dare discuss that in a place where it should be, or else you are called a troll.

[MadBadger]

11. In his stump speeches, he conistently talks about shutting down Gitmo, restoring Habeaus Corpus...

ending warrantless wiretapping.

[Birthmark]

13. All that is good.

But they are merely symptoms of the larger underlying problem: The unConstitutional expansion of Executive power. Until that power is reduced to its intended scope, Obama's plan is merely slathering a topical antibiotic and a band-aid on the outward blemishes while leaving the real infection untreated.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. How can one rescind something that does not exist?

Bush didn't sign the Unitary Executive Act, he merely appends signing statements to all sorts of stuff that assert a power of a unitary executive. That assertion cannot be rescinded as there is nothing there to rescind. The only remedy is for congress to take a specific case to the courts. My guess is that congress is (a) de-balled for starters; (b) unwilling to risk having the court, this court, rule that the fucknut in the white house is in fact a dictator and that congress has no control over any operations or organizations within the executive.

[Political Heretic]

19. Sorry that's not true. Gotta do a call out even as an O supporter.

He signed hundreds of executive orders, and THOSE are where the consolidation of power to the executive branch occurred. The signing statements were statements added to legislation as he signed it into law saying that he was immune from following it.

I agree that Obama should rescind executive orders of this administration, and should be a commitment he should make.

[RestoreGore]

26. Thank you, I agree.

How can we have real change if we don't undo this damage?

[Marie26]

37. That's one of the main

reasons I'm supported Hillary. IMO she's the only one who can undo this damage & cut out the deep rot that the Bush Adm. has spread throughout the executive branch. She "gets it" about Cheney's power grab & has vowed to undo the signing statements/unitary executive/unconstitutional powers as President. I haven't heard Obama make a direct commitment on this, or a sign that he sees the unitary executive as a problem. This might be part of reaching out to Republicans, etc. But I worry that maybe he doesn't "get it" about how authoritarian this country has become, or worse yet, is complicit to some degree. If anyone can dig up a quote of Obama on the unitary executive, I'd be happy to be corrected.

[Marie26]

38. Sorry, dupe. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Obama can rescind any executive order he wants to rescind.

But he cannot rescind Bush's assertion of powers not clearly defined by the constitution as those powers were asserted not through any specific EO but as part of the endless series of signing statements that continue to come out of the white house. Which EO is it that establishes a unitary executive? There isn't one. Bush asserted this authority in signing statements, in essence daring Congress to challenge him on it, which they did not do. Obama can of course not continue to do this, but that is really rescinding anything, it is not doing what Bush was doing. That leaves the next petty dictator free to take up exactly where Bush left off, and until Congress challenges this practice in the courts, and wins that challenge, the unitary executive power exists if the president chooses to use it.

[Buzz Clik]

16. I have not heard Hillary Clinton address the vampire problem. Never! She is, therefore, Nosferatu.

[Peace Patriot]

22. Thank you for this OP, RestoreGore! BuzzClick's attacks on it are unwarranted,

and seem to deliberately miss the point.

We are looking at pervasive failure of the Democratic Party leadership to deal with a number of fundamental, Constitution-shattering and democracy-killing and utterly lawless actions of the Bush Junta that, in my opinion, are the reason for our Democratic Congress' 22% approval rating--a failure that is reflected in the two candidates who are left standing, with one of them slightly better than the other--Obama, because he has said more of the right things on the stump. I heard some speech he was giving the other day, on C-Span, and he did talk about Constitutional government, habeas corpus, spying, torture and Guantanamo Bay. I've heard Clinton on torture--against it--though it's mind-boggling that I should have to say that. A U.S. politician is against torturing prisoners. My, my, how far we have fallen off the fascist cliff into the Ninth Circle of Hell which, as Dante depicts it, is very cold!

And this is the problem. Just a throwaway line in a campaign. Cold, calculating, throwaways--dog meat--to the PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY.

These days, it is hard to read candidates. It is virtually impossible to know what they will actually do in office. They say one thing--or IMPLY one thing--in the campaign, and then do the opposite. MANY of our candidates--especially those handpicked by the DLC--did this in 2006. They IMPLIED that Iraq policy had to "change." The voters took this to mean, withdraw from this horrendous war, stop this illegal occupation, and some I'm sure heard 'prosecute the perps.' What did they do, once elected? They ESCALATED the war, and gave Bush/Cheney billions MORE of our non-existent tax dollars to keep killing Iraqis until they sign over their oil rights!!!

SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people oppose this war and want it ended. Congress is just the opposite. 60-70% of Congress SUPPORTS it--with a whole lot of them lying/implying that they don't.

So-o-o-o-o, when Barack Obama says he will end it, quickly, why should we believe him? Yeah, he opposed it early and publicly. Big point in his favor. But once in the Senate, he went right along, obediently, with the Democratic Party leadership strategy of SAYING they oppose it, but FUNDING IT ANYWAY, and doing absolutely nothing to stop it, or to bring these war criminals to account.

And so-o-o-o-o, what will Barack Obama actually DO if he gets to the White House? God knows. And the reason WE can't know is that he has NOT disavowed the policy of pre-emptive war announced by Bush Jr. at West Point in 2002.

There is a specific policy of the Imperial Presidency-On-Steroids for him to disavow. He has not disavowed it. Nor, of course, has Hillary.

This is what the debate should be about. The fundamental PRINCIPLES of the Constitution and the LIMITS OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER. And it is not even "on the table"--neither in the debates, nor on the stump that I've heard, nor in Congress, nor anywhere in the war profiteering corporate press. And, clearly, both Obama and Clinton WANT TO RETAIN all or many of these illegal presidential powers.

In this sense, the debates--whose content is even thinner than in stump speeches, because it is dictated by the corporate media--is warm spit for the PROGRESSIVE masses. And all we really gain from the debates is a gut feeling about the candidates. I'm not against gut feelings. It's all we have to go on, really--in a virtually contentless, corporate-dictated debate. To what degree is this candidate for Emperor a liar? Does he/she really give a goddamn about ordinary people or about democracy? Does he/she have sufficient command of the English language to speak sentences longer than "The terrorists hate us for our freedom"? Not that the choice of Gleem or Gleem-with-Mint is really ours to make. Another thing they NEVER, NEVER, NEVER talk about is the fascist coup of corporate-run, privatized vote counting, run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls--a new fascist phenomenon, fast-tracked all over the country during the 2002 to 2004 period.

Not. One. Word.

I tend to favor Obama--not because I trust him, or hear much from him that doesn't sound like warm spit--but because of his SUPPORTERS--the disenfranchised majority who are flocking to his campaign because it is the only place left for this whopping 70% antiwar majority to go. THEY will make change. THEY will reform this country--against the foot-dragging of whoever the global corporate predators give Charlemagne's crown to.

I just don't see the George Washington, the Thomas Jefferson, the James Madison, the Abe Lincoln, or the FDR we so desperately need for American Revolution II: the revolt against the Corporate Rulers. I see, instead, potential for a Hoover-like reaction to Great Depression II, in both candidates, and immensely scary potential for Oil War II: Iran or South America. (Did you see Rumsfeld's op-ed in WaPo on the latter, this DECEMBER*?) They have NOT SAID it's wrong to kill people for their oil! They have not said it. It's still out there as BEING OKAY to our political establishment.

It's THIS that I think RestoreGore is reacting to. Where is the fundamental commitment of the Democratic Party leadership and its candidates to LAWFUL government, and to the fundamental principles of our democracy, which has to be strongly articulated and addressed with a PLAN OF ACTION?

---------------------------

* Re: Oil War II: South America

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Hillary echoes Rumsfeld here:

"If I am entrusted with the presidency, America will have the courage, once again, to meet with our adversaries. But I will not be penciling in the leaders of Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba on the presidential calendar without preconditions, until we have assessed through lower level diplomacy, the motivations and intentions of these dictators. --Hillary Clinton (at GW University, 2/25/08)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=6196

Obama's statements about Chavez (read: Oil War II) have been more ambiguous and circumspect, but not particularly comforting. Neither Clinton nor Obama seem to understand that Chavez is NOT a "tyrant," has run a scrupulously lawful, elected government for ten years, and has a 70% approval rating. What do the Venezuelans know that our political establishment is deliberately hiding from us? That Venezuela has transparent elections, and we do not? That the poor majority deserves more than warm spit--they deserve REAL representation of their interests in government?

Venezuela: the spectre of Big Oil
February 26th 2008, by Paul Kellogg - PolEconAnalysis
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3201

Exxon Is Demanding Ten Times its Investment, Says Venezuelan Oil Minister
February 16th 2008, by James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3164

Venezuela: Poverty has been reduced 40 percent in ten years
February 21st 2008, by ABN
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/newsbrief/3186

Venezuelan health spending among highest in the Americas
February 20th 2008, by Kiraz Janicke Venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3184

We need a movement to nationalize Exxon-Mobil
February 9th 2008, by Daniel Brockert
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/letter/3137

[RestoreGore]

29. Incredible response. Thank you for understanding me

I am so disillusioned that I just don't know what to say or how to say it anymore. I see this country no longer the country I once saw. I still love this country, but I see such an erosion of the core principles that our first citizens and founding fathers fought and gave their lives for that it hurts my heart, and I know that is the same for many Americans. I want to see it all restored, and since we have heard NOTHING from these candidates but soundbites I intend to hold their feet to the fire because I do love this country so much. The limitless power that the executive branch has taken for itself will still be in effect in January 2009. I will not feel comfortable as a citizen regardless of whose hands that temptation is in. Period. Thank you so much for undertstanding where I am coming from. If we do not bring this coutnry back to the core principles that birthed it and restore the separation of powers that has been so badly dessimated by these criminals, nothing said in a stump speech matters especially after allowing it to go forward. I never thought I would see the day either when people in Congress would use being against torture as part of a campaign stump speech as if it is somehow novel to be against it. It absolutely boggles my mind. Thanks again.

[Emit]

27. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4614739#4614951

[RestoreGore]

30. I will read these. Thank you

[Emit]

33. Sorry I couldn't hone in on the original link for you

gotta post fast -- on my way to work

the boston.com link is where the details are at: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/question6

The unbossed info is editorial

[MonkeyFunk]

28. I'd be very wary of any candidate

who promised to "rescind" legislation. That's not a power the executive has.

[RestoreGore]

31. Semantics. Ok, CALL for it then.

[Marie26]

34. Here's Hillary's response.

Which I know you didn't ask for. :) Maybe it'll inspire some Obama people to look up his position. The President can't "rescind" the unitary executive theory, because it's not a law, but an executive branch position. The next president can reliquish and cede these powers.

Guardian interview:

Michael Tomasky asks Hillary Clinton about Iraq, the legacy of the Cold War, Mukasey and ceding executive powers

Q: 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?

A: 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.

Q: 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?

A: 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.

...

Q: What were you most concerned about? (Re: Mukasky AG nomination)

Well there were a number of issues. Obviously, I do not believe in as expansive a definition of executive power, and some of the questions on the second day about presidential authority with respect to interrogation also concern me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/23/usa.hillaryclinton

Boston Globe:

Hillary Clinton Vows to Check Growing Presidential Power
Would curb use of signing statements

By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff | October 11, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton said yesterday that if she is elected president, she intends to roll back President Bush's expansion of executive authority, including his use of presidential signing statements to put his own interpretation on bills passed by Congress or to claim authority to disobey them entirely.

"I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency," Clinton told the Boston Globe's editorial board.

Although Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements, declarations that accompany his signature on bills approved by Congress, Clinton said she would use the statements only to clarify bills that might be confusing or contradictory. She also said she did not subscribe to the "unitary executive" theory that argues the Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws limiting the president's power over executive branch operations. Adherents to the theory say any president who refuses to obey such laws is not really breaking the law.

"It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people," she said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/11/clinton_vows_to_check_executive_power/

[RestoreGore]

36. Thank you very much for this.

We really do need to see this in a debate.

[Marie26]

39. But we won't ever see it in an MSM debate.

Debates need to be sponsored by non-profits again - the corporations would rather distract people w/bread & circuses (Farrakan! Three faces of Eve!) than actually address or bring attention to the corporatism & authoritarianism that is overtaking this country.

[RestoreGore]

40. And yet so many still watch them... like stopping on the side of the road to view an accident ;-)

I want to hear them both publicly denounce it and state that they will cede it and any executive power that threatens the separation of powers, and work to have The Patriot Act and those bills designed to take away civil liberties repealed (excuse me if that is the wrong terminology) if that is even possible now. I just think we have gone too far down this hole to get all the way back and therefore, having such power is a great temptation and one they need to renounce.

[RestoreGore]

35. Since the edit time has expired: Changing "rescind" to "cede" executive power

I knew what I meant, just didn't use the best word to describe it.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Ok - that he can do.

By simply not continuing the Bush unitary executive nonsense.