Updated Below:
Many of those who advocate increased openness and transparency within government have expressed a certain degree of disappointment with the Obama administration. This disappointment is not because of any hopes which such advocates unrealistically projected onto Obama. Rather, it arises because of specific pledges and commitments he made during the campaign, at his inauguration, and in the early days of his administration, many of which appear to have gone unfulfilled.
Examples of failure to deliver are numerous and include: the President flip-flopping on his prior agreement to the release of photos depicting the torture of detainees by Americans; supporting a bill which would have retroactively changed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in order to prevent a legal ruling by the courts to compel the release of the photos; the verbatim invoking of the Bush argument that the concept of privileged presidential communications is a legitimate basis for denying public access to records of White House visitors maintained by the Secret Service; using absurd arguments to counter a lawsuit to force the disclosure of materials related to former Vice President Cheney’s interview with former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald with respect to the criminal investigation into the Valerie Plame affair; the continued abuse of the state secrets privilege in pushing for the blanket dismissal of warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition cases in the courts; and the list goes on. In many regards, except for the calendar, it seems that little has changed in the government's position with respect to secrecy regardless of whether Bush or Obama is the president.
It is in that context that CQ had a recent article regarding the above concerns as well as with other issues involving transparency and openness in government. In it, I am quoted as stating that:
Obama has taken an oath not to leave that office any weaker than he found it. ... During Bush, we saw the executive assert new unilateral authorities for the first time. Now that we have a new president, it’s unrealistic to expect him to walk away from those unilateral authorities.
The above quote deals with a larger concern with respect to the unchecked growth of unilateral executive authority in our government. Under our system of checks and balances, the President's authority to act unilaterally is defined by the willingness and the ability of Congress and the courts to constrain it. When the two co-equal branches of government fail to fulfill their responsibility to constrain unilateral acts by the President that are not based in either statute or the Constitution, they are, in effect, endorsing by omission the expansion of executive authority. The new ground staked out by any President under such circumstances becomes the de facto standard, not only for the immediate president but for all future presidents.
Many of those who advocate increased openness and transparency within government have expressed a certain degree of disappointment with the Obama administration. This disappointment is not because of any hopes which such advocates unrealistically projected onto Obama. Rather, it arises because of specific pledges and commitments he made during the campaign, at his inauguration, and in the early days of his administration, many of which appear to have gone unfulfilled.
Examples of failure to deliver are numerous and include: the President flip-flopping on his prior agreement to the release of photos depicting the torture of detainees by Americans; supporting a bill which would have retroactively changed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in order to prevent a legal ruling by the courts to compel the release of the photos; the verbatim invoking of the Bush argument that the concept of privileged presidential communications is a legitimate basis for denying public access to records of White House visitors maintained by the Secret Service; using absurd arguments to counter a lawsuit to force the disclosure of materials related to former Vice President Cheney’s interview with former Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald with respect to the criminal investigation into the Valerie Plame affair; the continued abuse of the state secrets privilege in pushing for the blanket dismissal of warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition cases in the courts; and the list goes on. In many regards, except for the calendar, it seems that little has changed in the government's position with respect to secrecy regardless of whether Bush or Obama is the president.
It is in that context that CQ had a recent article regarding the above concerns as well as with other issues involving transparency and openness in government. In it, I am quoted as stating that:
Obama has taken an oath not to leave that office any weaker than he found it. ... During Bush, we saw the executive assert new unilateral authorities for the first time. Now that we have a new president, it’s unrealistic to expect him to walk away from those unilateral authorities.
The above quote deals with a larger concern with respect to the unchecked growth of unilateral executive authority in our government. Under our system of checks and balances, the President's authority to act unilaterally is defined by the willingness and the ability of Congress and the courts to constrain it. When the two co-equal branches of government fail to fulfill their responsibility to constrain unilateral acts by the President that are not based in either statute or the Constitution, they are, in effect, endorsing by omission the expansion of executive authority. The new ground staked out by any President under such circumstances becomes the de facto standard, not only for the immediate president but for all future presidents.
In this regard, after the failure of especially Congress to constrain unprecedented claims to unilateral executive authority by the Bush administration, it became irrelevant who won the election last November. Irrespective of whether it was McCain or Obama, on January 20th of this year, either one would have taken the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Inherent in swearing to "faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States" is the promise to leave the office no weaker than when inherited. Thus, Congress' failure to act over the recent past leaves an enduring legacy -- one which will persist for generations to come unless both the legislature and the judiciary step up to their responsibility to check the abuses of executive authority our nation has endured, and continues to endure, to the detriment of our form of governance.
Update: In terms of walking back from prior commitments, contrast two comments from the Obama administration. First, as announced on the White House blog on January 21, 2009:
President Obama has committed to making his administration the most (emphasis added) open and transparent in history...".
Second, as quoted in the referenced CQ article:
White House officials shrug off such complaints. "I think the president underscored his commitment to transparency on his first full day in office,'"Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at a regular White House briefing last month. "This is not (emphasis added) a contest between this administration or that administration or any administration."
Maybe it is me, but I find it somewhat difficult to lay claim to being the most open and transparent administration in history unless you compare this administration to other administrations. The idea that what I say is more important than what I do is all too familiar. Anyone recall "we don't torture"?
No comments:
Post a Comment