Bush Has Given The Next President Dictatorial Powers, Who Would Say No To That?

[ThomWV]

Unless he is impeached between now and January 20, 2009 George W. Bush will transfer to the next President a legacy of lawlessness unhampered by any serious attempt to challenge his vision of the power of the Presidency. The precedence will have been set.

And what is that precedent that follows to our next President? Laws properly passed by the Congress and enacted by the President have no meaning should the whim of the President be otherwise. Adherence to Treaty is optional. The President is under no obligation to be truthful to either the people or their Representatives. The President's Cabinet is as one with himself and immune to oversight.

So who would say no to that? What incentive is there for the next President to diminish the power inherited from the current one? The question must be asked because unless action is taken to hold this current crop of criminals liable for what they have done - and that seems improbable - then this extraordinary and evil power lies in wait for its next abuse. Bush has handed a loaded cannon to his successor - I think we should at least try to dampen his powder a little bit before the next guy gets to use it on us.

[L. Coyote]

1. Paving the way for an electoral revolution from the Left?

What do they have in mind?

[ThomWV]

3. Unintended consequence ...

They certainly did not expect the state of the nation we see today to be the case. They thought that by now their rule would have been established, that the power amassed would have been their's to use forever. That is the fairy tale world they live in. They failed to hold power, but the power is still there. I do not know that it will be any safer in our hands than in their's.

[ClassWarrior]

5. "I do not know that it will be any safer in our hands than in theirs."

How true. The founders were WISE to put drastic restrictions on our public officials. ALL public officials, regardless of their politics. Good reading on this:

http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1637

NGU.

[OneGrassRoot]

13. Powerful statement

"They failed to hold power, but the power is still there. I do not know that it will be any safer in our hands than in their's."

So true.

[VP505]

2. I agree, the

reality of it is, reigning in Bu$hCo and getting back to how it should be is not gonna happen. Its obvious that there is some serious complicity going on, which boils down to, our Dem leaders will not put their own cushy situation in jeopardy.

[leftchick]

4. what happens if there is an Iran strike

perhaps bush will not leave office. But your point is well taken. I can't see any of the candidates on either side giving up anything. Impeachment is mandatory.

[peace13]

6. Have we ever located our sixth nuke that was flying around

last summer? Anything is possible. Peace, Kim

[leftchick]

12. I would bet

it is on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. :(

[peace13]

17. Me too! n/t

[unpossibles]

7. this is what scares me and makes me think they have no intentions of letting the will of the people

get in their way. They stole/cheated the last two presidential elections, and a few others besides.

[Wizard777]

8. At this point I'm more afraid of what crimes the next President thinks they are entitled to get away

with. Than anything Al Qaida could ever do to us.

[aquart]

9. Been saying that for years.

[Prophet 451]

10. Works in theory

Let's be honest, we all know that if Bush's successor (assuming he leaves office and I have dark suspicians about that) ever tries to excercise the dictatorial powers Bush has appropriated, the right will nuke the fuck out of him/her.

If a President Hillary or Obama tried, say, authorising warrantless wiretapping of seemingly everybody, the right would have voted to impeach before the ink was even dry on the order. This has never been about expanding poresidential powers, it has been about expanding presidential powers when a Republican is the president and only then.

[zanne]

11. I've often wondered about that...

But remember, Bush and Co. had a Republican Congress to help them along until 96', and now they have a Republican-Lite Congress that won't challenge them, for fear of losing.
I don't know what they expect in the next president. Perhaps they're thinking that Congress will remain in the hands of conservatives or that the Dems won't have a big enough majority and will keep a Dem. president in check. There has to be a reason...they really can't be that stupid, can they?

[IDemo]

14. Dennis Kucinich. Chris Dodd.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Jack Rabbit would say no

I can clamor for the impeachment of the next criminal president as easily as I can for this one. The president cannot modify legislation with a signing statement; there is no such thing as executive privilege; falsifying a case for invading a sovereign state is a violation of international law to which the US is party; torture, including waterboarding, is a violation of the eighth amendment and, as pertains to detainees in Mr. Bush's offshore gulags, of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture; the absence of due process is a violation of the Sixth Amendment of Habeas Corpus and, as pertains to detainees in Mr. Bush's offshore gulags, of the Geneva Conventions; the NSA spying program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment; destroying evidence needed in an official investigation is a criminal offense.

No action by Mr. Bush nor any omission by Congress changes that.

[blues90]

16. no one will say no to these new powers

[jmg257]

18. There is NO incentive for those in power to not try to attain more...OUR duty, however...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It is our duty, but WE the people have no real power anymore. Voting just replaces the old tyrants with the new.

[Kansas Wyatt]

19. The silence was deafening...

When I would tell the twenty percenters a few years back that Bush would be handing Hillary the very same power that he was abusing. They were completely ignorant that it could very well come back and bite them on the ass.