Why We Object to Military Presidential Powers

Once upon a time, the United States was attacked and thousands of people died. Americans, and indeed much of the civilized world, rallied behind then President Bush to root out the evil doers and bring them to justice. But somewhere along the way, something went wrong.

The first thing to go wrong was Congress essentially abdicating it’s “war powers” and it’s function as a limit on executive powers in war time. It gave the then-POTUS very broad military powers. The then-administration used them, and embraced secrecy like few has before. Indeed, it was declared the most secretive administration in history.

Candidate Obama promised to change that. And change it, he did. He took the throne as the most secretive administration from Bush. But we’ll get back to that.

After the Democrats and Liberals, who eagerly abdicated their powers to the POTUS, realized what Bush was doing, they objected, and objected hard. They were right to do so, but wrong in their reasoning.

It was famously stated the objection was not to the POTUS having them, but to the man in the office having them. 

This was the second core to their mistake. But surely, they thought, if we can just get Bush out and Obama or Hillary in, the powers would not be abused. Sure, it is the man, not the power that is the corrupting influence.

As history is again teaching our species, that is a false assumption. It is indeed the power which corrupts, not the man in the office. What they had not learned from history is to never give an office power if you might object to whomever holds the office using that power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/14/obama-transparency-podesta-sunshine-week

Bill Anderson avatar
About Bill Anderson
Just your frendly neighborhood curmudgeon!