Comments on: Does Giuliani Have a “a dangerously out-sized view of presidential powers”? http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728 A rough draft of my thoughts... Wed, 10 Oct 2025 14:16:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Political Mavens » A Question on Checks and Balances, Partisanship and Executive Power http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361622 Thu, 05 Apr 2025 16:07:04 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361622 [...] Does Giuliani Have a “a dangerously out-sized view of presidential powers”? [...] […] Does Giuliani Have a “a dangerously out-sized view of presidential powers”? […]

]]> by: PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » A Question on Checks and Balances, Partisanship and Executive Power http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361618 Thu, 05 Apr 2025 16:01:49 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361618 [...] While it is hardly a new theme for me, I have been blogging quite a bit the last couple of days on the subject of inter-branch relations (specifically checks and balances in the context of executive-legislative relations). Posts on that topic include: Does Giuliani Have a “a dangerously out-sized view of presidential powers”? [...] […] While it is hardly a new theme for me, I have been blogging quite a bit the last couple of days on the subject of inter-branch relations (specifically checks and balances in the context of executive-legislative relations). Posts on that topic include: Does Giuliani Have a “a dangerously out-sized view of presidential powers”? […]

]]> by: Pros and Cons » Middle East Round-Up, Credit And Blame Edition. http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361515 Wed, 04 Apr 2025 14:21:18 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361515 [...] Syrian officials get to go on TV and opine “Better late than never.” as Pelosi tries to convince the killers du jour that there are two poles running foreign policy in the USA. I’ll bet Congressional supremacist PoliBlogger is not in the least upset, but there is a reason why the Founders put most foreign policy under the purview of the executive branch. (Please note that I am not picking on Dr. Talyor. I obviously agree with him that the above-noted hijab business is not such a  big deal. Further, he also has one of the few updates I’ve seen on Pakistan’s Pushtun-Uzbek fighting. And no, I still don’t know for sure whom to root for in this fighting, except perhaps for more fighting between the combatants.) [...] […] Syrian officials get to go on TV and opine “Better late than never.” as Pelosi tries to convince the killers du jour that there are two poles running foreign policy in the USA. I’ll bet Congressional supremacist PoliBlogger is not in the least upset, but there is a reason why the Founders put most foreign policy under the purview of the executive branch. (Please note that I am not picking on Dr. Talyor. I obviously agree with him that the above-noted hijab business is not such a  big deal. Further, he also has one of the few updates I’ve seen on Pakistan’s Pushtun-Uzbek fighting. And no, I still don’t know for sure whom to root for in this fighting, except perhaps for more fighting between the combatants.) […]

]]> by: Dr. Steven Taylor http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361498 Wed, 04 Apr 2025 02:00:38 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361498 It is the case that given the constitutional nature of the Uk and the US that certain liberties, for example free speech and press, are more easily constrained in the UK is ways that would not be constitutional in the US. The supremacy of Parliament and the lack of a written bill of rights does mean more malleability in such rights. This is what I was referring to and engaged in some over-statement. Still, my beef was with Honza and Rudy, not the UK :) It is the case that given the constitutional nature of the Uk and the US that certain liberties, for example free speech and press, are more easily constrained in the UK is ways that would not be constitutional in the US.

The supremacy of Parliament and the lack of a written bill of rights does mean more malleability in such rights.

This is what I was referring to and engaged in some over-statement. Still, my beef was with Honza and Rudy, not the UK :)

]]> by: james http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361497 Tue, 03 Apr 2025 22:23:10 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361497 "Liberties are far more limited in the UK than the US..." Are they??? I've seen shocking things happening in the US that I would consider impossible in the UK. It's true I haven't been back there for a few years now... Still, I am surprised. “Liberties are far more limited in the UK than the US…”

Are they??? I’ve seen shocking things happening in the US that I would consider impossible in the UK. It’s true I haven’t been back there for a few years now… Still, I am surprised.

]]> by: Dr. Steven Taylor http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361496 Tue, 03 Apr 2025 21:18:39 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361496 Liberties are far more limited in the UK than the US, yes. And, not surprisingly, aliens don't have the same rights as citizens. I am not "crying" dictatorship, but agreeing with the notion that if we do want an executive who can arbitrarily imprison people on his/her whim then we allow authoritarian elements to creep into our system. The important part of that quote is:<blockquote>One of the most fundamental bases for our claim to be a free country is the fact that we do not grant the President, or anyone else, the power to simply toss people in jail and throw away the key on nothing more than their own say-so.</blockquote> Quite so. While trotting out the word "dictatorship" may bit a jarring, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider some of the things that have been seeping into our politics in the past five plus years. Sometimes liberties are lost not with a bang, but with a whimper. At a minimum I tire of assertions of broad executive powers by present and want-to-be executives, and feel that they ought to be noted. Montesquieu noted that tyranny (another word for dictatorship) emerges when one person, or group of persons hold executive, legislative and judicial power--which is what happens when a president can arbitrarily detain someone without review. It may be dictatorship in the micro, but dictatorship it is. Liberties are far more limited in the UK than the US, yes.

And, not surprisingly, aliens don’t have the same rights as citizens.

I am not “crying” dictatorship, but agreeing with the notion that if we do want an executive who can arbitrarily imprison people on his/her whim then we allow authoritarian elements to creep into our system.

The important part of that quote is:

One of the most fundamental bases for our claim to be a free country is the fact that we do not grant the President, or anyone else, the power to simply toss people in jail and throw away the key on nothing more than their own say-so.

Quite so.

While trotting out the word “dictatorship” may bit a jarring, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider some of the things that have been seeping into our politics in the past five plus years.

Sometimes liberties are lost not with a bang, but with a whimper.

At a minimum I tire of assertions of broad executive powers by present and want-to-be executives, and feel that they ought to be noted.

Montesquieu noted that tyranny (another word for dictatorship) emerges when one person, or group of persons hold executive, legislative and judicial power–which is what happens when a president can arbitrarily detain someone without review. It may be dictatorship in the micro, but dictatorship it is.

]]> by: Honza P http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361495 Tue, 03 Apr 2025 21:09:51 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=11728#comment-1361495 I don't call it dictatorsip, I call it Great Britain, which joined it's Continental neighbors in allowing administrative detentions in the late 1980s, but whatever. The Secret Service has long had the ability to arrest anyone for being near the President, at it's discretion. The INS and now DHS have long had that power with regards to aliens, checked generally only by executive adminsitrative "courts" and the vanishingly rare federal court appeal. (Better by far in many cases to call one's Congressman.) These powers are limited largely by jurisdiction and the hassle of carrying them out. Nevertheless, I do not smell the proverbial whiff of grapeshot or bite of cordite in the air, or consider myself to be in a dictatorship when I visit France, though Judges can double as prosecutors and police can hold people for purely administrative and discretionary reasons. Or am I missing your point? Is it better when only judges have such powers but uniquely bad when the executive does? Badck to Rudy though. Yes, his statemendt does sound extreme. Nevertheless, crying dictatorship seems to be overstating your case. I don’t call it dictatorsip, I call it Great Britain, which joined it’s Continental neighbors in allowing administrative detentions in the late 1980s, but whatever. The Secret Service has long had the ability to arrest anyone for being near the President, at it’s discretion. The INS and now DHS have long had that power with regards to aliens, checked generally only by executive adminsitrative “courts” and the vanishingly rare federal court appeal. (Better by far in many cases to call one’s Congressman.)

These powers are limited largely by jurisdiction and the hassle of carrying them out. Nevertheless, I do not smell the proverbial whiff of grapeshot or bite of cordite in the air, or consider myself to be in a dictatorship when I visit France, though Judges can double as prosecutors and police can hold people for purely administrative and discretionary reasons.

Or am I missing your point? Is it better when only judges have such powers but uniquely bad when the executive does?

Badck to Rudy though. Yes, his statemendt does sound extreme. Nevertheless, crying dictatorship seems to be overstating your case.

]]>