The Boston Globe has an article by Charlie Savage - the journalist whose investigation first brought President Bush's use of signing statements to light - about the various positions by Democratic and Republican candidates on executive powers. Here are a few of the most direct answers to critically important questions that the tenure of the Bush administration has raised to date.
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?
Never. If I thought it was unconstitutional, I would turn to the Courts, which is what our founding fathers expected and provided for in cases of Executive-Congressional differences.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
No.
What's remarkable, I think, is that Senator Dodd's dedication to upholding the Constitution and the balance of powers requires this sort of answer to these sorts of questions, though you won't see the GOP candidates or top Republican talking heads giving the same consideration to these issues. Standing up for the rule of law makes us more safe at home. We need a President who will stand up for these issues, even if it means rolling back some of the powers and practices used by the Bush administration in contravention to the Constitution and at the expense of the balance of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary branch.
You can read Senator Dodd's full response to the Globe's questionnaire here.
Emptywheel, Marty Lederman at Balkinization, The Anonymous Liberal, and Glenn Greenwald have more on the Globe's survey.
Original article
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
