Feingold: Obama Should ‘Renounce The Extreme Claims Of Executive Power’ In Inaugural Address
Feingold: Obama Should ‘Renounce The Extreme Claims Of Executive Power’ In Inaugural Address
During an interview last Friday on PBS with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) host Bill Moyers asked Feingold what he wanted from the upcoming Obama administration. “I would like the new president to do exactly what he said he’s going to do,” Feingold said, such as bringing the country together, ending the Iraq war and closing Guantanamo.
Feingold also told Moyers that in his inaugural address, Obama should “renounce the extreme claims of executive power”:
FEINGOLD: Well, of course, the new president, minutes after he’s sworn in, in this wonderful moment — it will be cold out there. It will be short speech. But included in the speech, I would hope, would be some attempt by this new, wonderful president to renounce the extreme claims of executive power. To simply renounce these claims that were made by the Bush administration.
Watch it:
Indeed, since his election as president, Obama has reiterated his promises to close Guantanamo and end the Iraq war. But in a Daily Kos diary published one day after his interview with Moyers, Feingold expounded on why Obama needs to the condemn Bush’s abuses of executive power as soon as he takes office:
[F]ailing to act swiftly to reverse the damage could essentially legitimize that conduct and the extreme legal theories on which it was based. That is why it is critically important for President-elect Obama to unequivocally renounce President Bush’s extreme claims of executive authority. As I mentioned in the interview yesterday, stating this position clearly in the inaugural address would affirm to the nation, and the world, that respect for the rule of law has returned to the Oval Office.
In a speech on the Senate floor last September, Feingold outlined a series of expert recommendations “on what should be done to restore the rule of law” that focus on four key areas: “[T]he separation of powers among the branches, government secrecy, detention and interrogation policy, and protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans.”
“I am hopeful that with the election of Barack Obama, the assault on our Constitution will end,” Feingold said.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I bet the (New) President will touch on this in one way or another.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:42 pmI totally agree. It will be interesting to see whether our Republican friends will concur?
December 8th, 2008 at 3:45 pm“I am hopeful that with the election of Barack Obama, the assault on our Constitution will end,” Feingold said.
It would help tremendously if those in the current administration responsible for assaulting the Constitution were charged and prosecuted for their crimes. And, also, too (Palin) let’s not forget the telcos.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:50 pmBoot Reid, appoint Feingold.
Boot Pelosi, appoint Kucinich.
Let’s make this about REAL change instead of keeping the same ‘ol sell-outs.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:00 pmHmmmmm….I wouldn’t mind him hanging on to that power for just long enough to undo all the Bush damage.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pmafter jan 19 the talking bobblyheads on reichwing radio will be pissing and moaning, screaming bloody murder over the expansion of the executive branch. of course, they will leave out it was instituted by their abject failure dummya.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pmThe USA should end its illegal, criminal, imperial occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The USA should stop attacking the residents of Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, South Ossetia (via Georgia) and Lebanon (via cluster bombs sold to Israel).
December 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pmFeingold 2016
December 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pmI agree Obama should do this…but only after declaring martial law and arresting all Republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSGLzStgujM
December 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pmBetta buck he doesn’t disown ALL of ‘em…
But in any case, there’s now an unchallenged precedent regarding the kinds of powers the Chief Executive can arrogate unto itself in times of ‘crisis.’
and we’ve got a shit-pot of crises around, so there’ll be no shortage of excuses…
December 8th, 2008 at 5:14 pmLeave it Russ “the conscience of the Senate” Feingold to get to the core of what President Obama will face and how history will treat him. If Obama pulls off the feat of fixing Bushco’s damage while rescinding extraordinary powers he will be remembered among our greatest Presidents. Though I must admit I would like to see him use some of those extraordinary powers to ensure that the worst of the guilty parties be incarcerated in a moldy cell somewhere.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:29 pmHe’s already promised to review every executive order signed during the previous 8 years for constitutionality. That’s a good start. He’s a constitutional scholar so I expect good things.
But, I find it strange that few on the right OR the left seem to be able to get their heads around the fact that he is and has always been a moderate. I think he’s a moderate who leans towards populism and I’m fine with that. Again, the two most progressive Presidents in history entered office as moderates.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:29 pmI think the assault on the Contusion will continue – as it was drafted by a bunch of slave owners.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:42 pmIt’s unfortunate. The Democrats have clearly failed their constitutional duty to check executive power. Bush has lowered the bar and a Dem congress was implicit.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pmDammit, Feingold! Why didn’t YOU run???
December 8th, 2008 at 6:06 pmbut, but, butt…
if they say or imply that Bush did anything wrong then they aren’t aiming for the true Center-Right Heart of America that will presumably skip a beat if they say something that only the far-left really cares about.
sorry. I know not many around here buy that b.s. but I’m just about convinced that the new administration does.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm!
ONLY 16 COMMENTS IN 4 HOURS ?!?!?!?!!!!
?
… well, to think about it, what else is there to say?
thank you, senator feingold…
ARE YOU LISTENING MR. OBAMA? PLEASE?
say YES.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pmRenounce those damned signing statements except under extraordinary circumstances. If congress passed a bill to outlaw signing statements Bush would sign it WITH a signing statement.
Nothing has subverted the law more than these things. It’s the underlying process of the unitary executive theory.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:41 pm.
I’m sorry Senator Feingold, please remind me where the Rule of Law requires that accountability be kept “off the table”…
… I sure would enjoy seeing the Senate debate the merits and redeeming qualities of being lied to. Or what is it about acting in contravention to well established laws; i.e. Geneva and FISA, that requires a defense. Or how about the morality behind the uses of torture. Where are those articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney? Why haven’t they reached the Senate floor for debate? The Senator could be asking from the other Judiciary this simple question, NO?
R E M E M B E R:
The Rule of Law requires accountability.
Until then, it’s simply a two tiered justice system…
… Those that are subject to the Rule of Law and those that are above it and therefore are exempt from that Rule of Law.
.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:27 amI’ve been debating if Obama should wait a while before denouncing the extreme executive powers.
Rationalizing that Obama could use those extreme powers to reverse 8 yrs of Bushism. Once accomplished, then denounce the extreme presidential powers.
Allowing the Bush Adm and its legacy of dupe to die by the same powers.
But thats me………………………………..
December 9th, 2008 at 3:10 amWay to go DavidHart #18, just to think that a president can undermine a rule of law by signing it and then stating that it won’t be implemented by himself while in office.
December 9th, 2008 at 4:11 amWhere is the outrage? Where is Constitutional law? Where is Enforcement? Where Is Impeachment? Where Is the Media?
Wake up America!
If it were me, I’d find a way to deliberately and spectacularly abuse some of these powers in an attempt to bring the Republicans to the understanding that they should be renounced. You know, like sending the Secret Service over to Senator Shelby’s office to ransack the place, or do a signing statement that adversely affects red states or Republicans. You see, stupid people only understand when you rub their noses in it.
Once the Republicans start crying, I’d call a presser pointing out that nothing I did was out of the ordinary because Bush did it, but it is indeed messed up, unconstitutional and all that. Then I’d congratulate the Republicans on finally coming to Jesus on Constitutional checks and balances and the rule of law, pointing out to the other two branches that trusting the President to do the right thing is no way to do business, and that the convenience of the (Republican) President (yes, I’m talking to you, Justice Scalia) doesn’t make something less unconstitutional.
Lastly, I’d propose a series of Constitutional amendments to clarify boundaries and close the loop on Bushism once and for all.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:41 amI agree that Obama needs to renounce the abuses of the Bush govt.
However, that still leaves the door open for someone to, in the future, take on this travesty.
It s probably more important that something be done to close the door on these abuses.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm