Hey – you guys? Those of you who think Mitt Romney wouldn’t be such a bad Republican nominee? Those of you who think he’d be the least-bad Republican that could take office next year?
Last month, Charlie Savage, Pulitzer-prize-winning Boston Globe journalist and author of Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, wrote up the results of a questionnaire he sent each of the major presidential candidates regarding their views of executive branch power. Along with a summary, he presented each candidate’s responses to the questionnaire.
Romney gave some of the scariest answers, basically supporting everything that Dick Cheney and David Addington have done over the past seven years to create a monarchical executive branch that can do whatever it wants.
Excerpts:
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
Intelligence and surveillance have proven to be some of the most effective national security tools we have to protect our nation. Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive and the President should not hesitate to use every legal tool at his disposal to keep America safe.
Surveillance without warrants is a-o.k., and damn any Congressional statutes — they’re only the law, after all.
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?
I share the view of many past presidents that signing statements are an important presidential practice.
President Bush has issued a record number of signing statements that he claims allow him to bypass any laws he believes are unconstitutional. The proper response to such bills is to veto them. More on signing statements. (This was the basis for Savage’s Pulitzer.)
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president’s authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress’s current plans to try to do exactly that.
Translation: Presidents can authorize torture no matter what Congress says.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
The President must carry out all of his duties in a manner consistent with the rule of law, whether it is our Constitution or valid international agreements, so long as they do not impinge upon the President’s constitutional authority.
“[S]o long as they do not impinge upon the President’s constitutional authority.” These are code words for the unitary executive theory, which misinterprets the Constitution to grant the president near-monarchical powers in certain areas of law. For instance, each of Bush’s signing statements says that he will execute the law “in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.” How broadly does Romney interpret “the President’s constitutional authority”? See question 10:
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
The Bush Administration has kept the American people safe since 9/11. The Administration’s strong view on executive power may well have contributed to that fact.
That speaks for itself. Everything Bush has done is fine!
Romney may not be as socially conservative as he currently claims to be. But when it comes to executive power, Romney would be as much of a nightmare as Giuliani.