Tag Archives | Executive Power

The President Assassinates US Citizens?

A provocative piece, as usual, from Glenn Greenwald. Definitely worth looking at… (h/t Lew Rockwell)

Here’s an excerpt:

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests.” They’re entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration’s policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges – based solely on the President’s claim that they were Terrorists – produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn’t Obama’s policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind – not imprisoned, but killed – produce at least as much controversy?

Click here to read the rest

Comments { 1 }

Video: Presidential Power and the Constitution

Andrew Napolitano in the third part of his series on the Constitution.

Don’t miss him as the keynote speaker at the Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta, GA!

Comments { 1 }

Bush, Truman and Roosevelt: All Wrong on Executive Power

What’s likely not surprising to many supporters of strict, constitutional government is that presidents from both political parties have been taking far more power into their hands than the founders and ratifiers had authorized in the Constitution.

What’s been missing, though, is a serious, academic piece of research to support the idea that Article II of the Constitution is NOT a sweeping grant of power. Until now, that is.

Leading Constitutional Expert and regular Tenth Amendment Center contributor, Rob Natelson, has a new scholarly article on this very subject which was reported on by Vision, at the University of Montana.

Here’s an excerpt:

While researching the historical facts surrounding the decision, Natelson stumbled upon documents that helped to answer a larger question: Did President Bush have the ability to set up tribunals in the first place? What is the executive power of the president of the United States? Does the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution convey a broad, undefined mass of executive power?

“I came up with a rather clear answer,” Natelson says. In an article to be published soon in the Whittier Law Review, Natelson expands on his conclusion.

“Lawyers are creatures of habit,” he says. “They tend to draft documents according to certain patterns or formulas.”

Natelson checked numerous 18th-century documents that, like Article II, granted enumerated powers. His goal was to find drafting patterns to see what interpretation of Article II fit those patterns.

Natelson found that legal documents frequently include a passage near the beginning that merely identifies the person to whom the document grants powers. Further down the document lists those powers. But insofar as he could find, the documents almost never began with a general grant of broad, unidentified authority, then address other matters before returning to enumerate specific powers.

“What this suggests is that the first sentence of Article II is not a broad grant of kingly executive authority,” he says. “The sentence merely tells the reader that the title of the chief executive will be the president of the United States – nothing more.”

In other words, Presidents Bush, Truman and Roosevelt were wrong when they asserted that Article II granted them powers other than those listed elsewhere in the Constitution.

Comments { 1 }