TheAgitator.com
My Challenge to Obama
Friday, November 14th, 2008Over at reason, I have a piece arguing that if Obama is serious about his promise for more accountable, transparent government, he should make a vow early in his administration that no one working for him will be able to invoke the false doctrine of “executive privilege” if ever called to testify.
Obama is all talk, just as most politicians are. Unless they have a lengthy record that you can examine, you’re betting on words, and as the saying goes, “talk is cheap”.
I will get very tired, very fast, of telling people “I told you so”. I’m sure Obama will “get a few things done” to please his masters, and most people will take these few things and swear by them even though most of his rhetoric will be unfulfilled. And the excuses will be made to blame others for his lack of fulfilling the rhetoric.
More scary is the executive branch making law, which is illegal if the Constitution was adhered to, which it hasn’t for over a century. I say screw it, let’s get to the dictatorship that everyone seems to want. Free candy for all, it doesn’t matter who is paying for the basket of goodies you believe you are getting for free! Socialism is FUN!
I did a search for “Executive Privilege” on your site and came up with a few hits going back to 2003.
I didn’t notice that many references to the Bush Administrations use of this doctrine.
Did I miss all of those posts?
Radley’s column is fine, though I think he’s solving the wrong problem. The “privilege” question is a byproduct of the growth of presidential staff — the Executive Office of the President — that exists outside the congressional framework of Cabinet agencies. Eliminating this private court of advisers should be the pie-in-the-sky goal, not a temporary renunciation of the “privilege”.
With 31 of 47 transition team members having ties to the Clinton Administration……the “most ethical” Administration in history…….I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
Of course, Obummer will hold everyone to the standards he has set for himself. Being a “constitution law” professor, he knows exactly what is and isn’t constitutional.
I will be my usual, cynical self and just assume now that they will model THEIR “Transparent” administration after Bush’s version of “transparent” administration….meaning the darkest tinted windows allowable by law…and then some.
Being a “constitution law” professor, he knows exactly what is and isn’t constitutional.
The purpose of a “Constitutional Law” course isn’t to teach students what is or isn’t constitutional (since one could pretty well figure that out by reading the Constitution), but rather to teach students how to convince others that things are constitutional whether or not they actually are.
That Obama taught Constitutional Law instructor should be cause for concern, not relief.
Data point from a liberal: I agree with you in principal, but I would also worry about Obama’s competance if he accepted your pledge. The system is more screwed up than the people are, and I don’t think this is the most important problem we have to solve in 2009.
Hey Radley,
do you keep track of how many times your reports/stories have been green lit at Fark?
This one included…
“Plus, I’d like to hear Obama supporters explain why he shouldn’t disavow executive privilege.”
Well Radley since you campaigned so hard for Obama, start talking. You can’t possibly think that after all the hard work you put in for the Obama campaign that you can position yourself in opposition to “Obama supporters”.
I agree he should wave executive privilege. He should also lower taxes on the top wage earners in the country, promote small businesses, resist corporate protectionist policy, and fight the anti-gun lobby. But he isn’t going to and you knew it every single time you shilled for him here and at Reason.
Does anyone recognize the difference between skepticism and cynicism anymore? It’s a fine line, and it took me 3 years of Bush before I crossed it.
Could Obama at least be inaugurated before you let your cynicism overwhelm you? By all means be skeptics, call bullshit, but first you gotta see if it actually works or not.
I mean, if he pulls it off, you’ll REALLY look like assholes. Again.
“Plus, I’d like to hear Obama supporters explain why he shouldn’t disavow executive privilege.”
Well, because the office of the President has always has been afforded some degree of e.p., just nothing like we’ve seen for the last 8, 16, 20, or 28 years as the power of the executive has grown at the expense of the legislative branch. National security considerations alone justify SOME executive privilege, as do diplomatic works, and a host of other issues, but congress has bent over and let it happen.
Now – why so many of you think a constitutional scholar with 16 (or is it 14) years experience in the legislative branch is going to consolidate the power of the executive branch even further – rather than relinquish some of it to his base of power (the very strongly democratic Senate) is –entirely– beyond me. You sound like a bunch of chicken littles.
Why not just have a blanket law for ALL public officials elected or appointed, basically your life is considered “under oath” and no more journalism with off the record statements. If you want to serve our nation then there should be no double dealing.
“The purpose of a “Constitutional Law” course isn’t to teach students what is or isn’t constitutional (since one could pretty well figure that out by reading the Constitution) . . . ”
Really? There could be no principled argument about how to apply the phrase “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states”? No reasoned disagreement about whether “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is the only part of the Second Amendment that matters, or whether “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” somehow affects the meaning?
Why do theologians have courses to study the Bible? Can’t they just figure out what is and isn’t moral by reading it?
I actually take great comfort in knowing that the President-Elect has studied the Constitution. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect the Current Occupant has never even read it.
Two thoughts. First, that hoping for a failure of leadership by the Obama administration that would equal the failure of the recent Repubs is wishing for something amazingly large. Don’t think Santa’s sleigh is that big, fellas.
Second, that the meta-narrative of the last 40yrs or so has been the attempts by the Right to remove the New Deal. Didn’t work out.
I agree with #12. Radley, privilege i very important in some contexts, lawyers and doctros jump out. It exists in cases where you think the eed of someone to get good advice and receive quality help is more important than the posible need to maybe access the specifics of that discussion.
It’s abundantly clear that Bush and his people hid behind this doctrine as a way to avoid accountability and criminally inculpating revelations. But it still should exist in some cases.
#13 See Radley’s post about anonymity (sp?). Off the record or unnamed sources often lead the the disclosure of very important information to the public – think of the domestic spying scandal. Just like EP, sometimes people hide behind it, but it has a very important function.
#14 “I actually take great comfort in knowing that the President-Elect has studied the Constitution.” Exactly, this should be a requirement
Ombibulous,
If you’d read his posts, you’d know that Radley was never “shilling” for Obama. Time and time again, he pointed out that Obama might be bad, but that McCain would be worse. To make such a comparison is not to provide explicit (or even implicit) approval of Obama, but to compare and contrast the candidates. I’d be curious to see if you could link to 3 or 4 posts where Radley “shilled” for Obama. Would you do the honors?
Thomasblair,
I will agree that Radley never specifically endorsed Obama. He did however over the last three months adopt the left wing talking points in focusing this election on the presidency of George W. Bush. He did repeatedly and explicitly stated that the Republican party needed to lose and deserved to lose. He did not, however mention in the months leading up to this election any long-form information about the candidate he claims to have voted for (Bob Barr) nor has he spent a significant amount of time talking about the negatives of a potential Obama administration.
Sure he has often qualified his repeated anti-republican statements with ‘not that I agree with Obama but’, but he spent countless posts bitterly badmouthing the Republican party. If as you say he was comparing and contrasting candidates then I suggest he should have spent some time actually talking about Obama, but he didn’t and he didn’t spend any time talking about Barr, or any other third party candidate.
Now understand I am in no way interested in a McCain presidency and I certainly didn’t vote for him. But what I have done is stand firm against all of the candidates whom I believe to be in opposition to libertarian values. If we can’t even count on Radley and Reason.com to support libertarian candidates then who can we count on.
I will also direct you to look up the origins and definitions of the word “shill”, as you will discover to be a shill you do not have to explicitly or implicitly endorse and idea or person, merely do the work that supports them, particularly if you are in a position to appear impartial or not affiliated with that person or idea.
All I’m saying is that if Radley wants to place himself in opposition to “Obama supporters” then he should show us how he did more work supporting any other candidate than he did helping the Obama people oppose their biggest challenger. He can’t do it, not here or on Reason in the last three months of this election at least.
Do I believe that Radley actually likes Obama as president? No. But I do believe that bitterness for towards the Republican party has cause many on the forefront of the Libertarian movement to abandon their own party to simply watch the Republicans get punished.
damn I need an editor…
FYI it is a presidential aide not a presidential aid.