The
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan have dramatically
accelerated a push by the Bush administration to strengthen presidential
powers, giving President Bush a dominance over American government exceeding
that of other post-Watergate presidents and rivaling even Franklin D. Roosevelt's
command.
On a wide variety
of fronts, the administration has moved to seize power that it has shared
with other branches of government. In foreign policy, Bush announced vast
cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal but resisted putting the cuts in a treaty
-- thereby averting a Senate ratification vote. In domestic policy, the
administration proposed reorganizing the Immigration and Naturalization
Service without the congressional action lawmakers sought. And in legal
policy, the administration seized the judiciary's power as Bush signed
an order allowing terrorists to be tried in military tribunals.
There's
just a philosophy in the administration that the public doesn't have a
right to know, which is counter to the trend of the last 30 years. Now
they can justify it with national security, but that's more for convenience.
|
Phil
Schiliro
staff chief
to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House oversight
committee
|
Those actions,
all taken last week, build on earlier Bush efforts to augment White House
power, including initiatives to limit intelligence briefings to members
of Congress, take new spending authority from the legislature, and expand
the executive branch's power to monitor and detain those it suspects of
terrorism.
Presidential
power ebbs and flows historically and, by necessity, typically heightens
during times of war because of the need for a unifying figure in government.
Lyndon B. Johnson gained clout under the Tonkin Gulf resolution, as did
Roosevelt during World War II. The War Powers Act and other reforms by
Congress to limit presidential power after Watergate made for weaker executives,
as did the reduced threat from the Soviet Union.
Now, in the
views of many scholars, Bush has restored the "Imperial Presidency," a
term Arthur Schlesinger Jr. used to describe Richard M. Nixon's administration
in 1973.
"The power President
Bush is wielding today is truly breathtaking," said Tim Lynch, director
of the Project on Criminal Justice at the libertarian Cato Institute. "A
single individual is going to decide whether the war is expanded to Iraq.
A single individual is going to decide how much privacy American citizens
are going to retain."
The White House
says an increase in presidential power is the correct prescription for
a crisis. "The way our nation is set up, and the way the Constitution is
written, wartime powers rest fundamentally in the hands of the executive
branch," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "It's not uncommon
in time of war for a nation's eyes to focus on the executive branch and
its ability to conduct the war with strength and speed."
The public --
and Congress -- seem content for Bush to assume as much power as he desires.
He had 90 percent approval ratings in polls even before last week's dramatic
progress in the Afghanistan campaign, and congressional leaders have mustered
little resistance to the administration's bid to increase power in the
interests of national security.
Even before
Sept. 11, the Bush administration has been looking for ways to reassert
presidential prerogatives, particularly in its relationship to Congress
-- which some in the administration believe grew too powerful during the
Clinton and Reagan years and first Bush administration.
"Every administration
resets the balance with Congress as times change," said Fleischer. "When
the executive branch gets itself into trouble, the congressional role,
particularly the one on the investigative side, grows. The nation grew
weary of endless investigations and fishing expeditions."
Thus the administration
declined to cooperate with a General Accounting Office probe into Vice
President Cheney's energy task force, and cooperated with a Senate request
for information on new environmental regulations only after a subpoena
threat. Seeking to restore "executive privilege," the administration refused
to hand over to Congress many executive papers -- even some from the Clinton
administration.
David Walker,
a Republican who is director of the General Accounting Office, the investigative
arm of Congress, said: "There's a feeling of some in the current administration
that they want to draw a line in a different spot than previously has been
drawn in the separation of powers. As a result of Watergate and the challenges
[President Bill] Clinton had, Congress has been much more involved in a
range of areas they don't believe are appropriate."
This pattern
of consolidating presidential authority has extended to other areas of
governance. Bush issued an executive order allowing a sitting president
to block release of a predecessor's records, undermining a law Congress
passed about such papers. When an open-meeting law prevented Bush's Social
Security commission from meeting privately, the group split into two so
the law would not apply. In foreign affairs, the administration has shown
a distaste for international treaties that require congressional ratification,
recently rejecting amendments to the Biological Weapons Convention in favor
of actions that wouldn't require legislative approval.
The events of
Sept. 11 have accelerated the trend, prompting the administration to pursue
an array of new powers to combat terrorism and bolster domestic security.
Bush has opposed
Congress granting statutory authority to Homeland Security Director Tom
Ridge, which has allowed Ridge to refuse congressional requests for him
to testify. Bush's Justice Department decided, without the usual waiting
period for public comment, that it could listen in on lawyer-client conversations
if Attorney General John D. Ashcroft believes it necessary to prevent terrorism;
he could do so even if people have not been charged and even in the absence
of a court order.
That move followed
congressional approval of the USA Patriot Act, which makes it easier for
the government to monitor, search, detain or deport suspects and gives
the Justice Department more power to detain immigrants without charges.
Also this month, the government stopped saying how many people it has detained
related to the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the counterterrorism
campaign overseas, Bush ordered sensitive intelligence briefings to be
limited to eight of the 535 members of Congress, leading lawmakers to complain
Bush had violated the 1947 National Security Act. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)
said Bush "put out a public document telling the world he doesn't trust
the Congress." The president backed down after lawmakers promised not to
leak information.
The administration
has had mixed success pursuing more control over fiscal policy. In mid-October,
when Bush requested authority for the president, after consulting with
the speaker of the House, to extend government funding if Congress could
not convene because of a crisis, Congress balked. Lawmakers also objected
to an initial administration proposal, after the attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, for what amounted to a blank check from Congress.
As it is, Congress
gave the administration $40 billion to spend in response to the attacks
with few strings attached. Even so, lawmakers have complained that the
administration has not provided, as required, information on how it is
spending the money.
Some in the
legislative branch, particularly in the opposition party, detect a striking
departure in public policy. "There's just a philosophy in the administration
that the public doesn't have a right to know, which is counter to the trend
of the last 30 years," said Phil Schiliro, staff chief to Rep. Henry A.
Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee.
"Now they can justify it with national security, but that's more for convenience."
Scholars who
follow Washington offer say history offers ample precedent for a wartime
expansion of presidential power. "Crisis seeks leadership," said Charles
O. Jones, a presidential scholar with the University of Wisconsin. "The
only question becomes is the White House prepared to accept it and use
it effectively. This team has an above-average record so far."
Norman Ornstein,
a governmental scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said the growth
in presidential power during the first year of the Bush administration
exceeds the clout presidents gained in recent wars, comparing it to the
free hand Congress and the judiciary gave Roosevelt to fight World War
II.
"You always
have to worry about people who have this kind of power who don't have the
restraint," he said. "I worry about that, but we have such a different
kind of threat on the country as a whole that you have to change the way
you look at presidential power."
© 2001
The Washington Post Company
###
|