There's and interesting article about McCain, Obama and the issue of executive power. The full text can be found at http://www.slate.com/id/2200408/

Because the issues of wiretapping, executive power and FISA have come up on these forums I grabbed this little snippet that makes some mention of the issue to post for discussion.

McCain pledges never to use a signing statement—the somewhat symbolic but nevertheless crazy-making evidence that the Bush administration was doing its utmost to supersede Congress. McCain also says that if Congress definitively says that a "specific interrogation technique" is off-limits, the president can't approve its use anyway. But McCain also declines to name a single use of executive power by the Bush administration that is unconstitutional or even just "a bad idea." And in May he went on his infamous tear about the federal judiciary, blasting the judges "common and systematic abuse of our federal courts"—never mind that at this point the majority are Republican appointees. (If anyone was wondering whether McCain would toe the line and appoint archconservative justices in the model of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, as he'd promised, this should have quelled such doubts.)

As for Obama, he has been consistently strong in saying the president can't hold detainees he decides are enemy combatants without charges, and on preserving the right to habeas corpus—the means by which the Guantanamo detainees might actually challenge their enemy combatant status in court someday. The Bush administration has cast all of this as a fight for supremacy between the executive and the courts, so Obama's position would be a major easing of tensions. Obama also told Savage that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." And he said the president can't ignore Congress on troop deployments, while McCain complained about Congress micromanaging wars. Given how imperial the American presidency has become over the last half-century, Congress isn't good at taking power back for itself. So, Obama looks like he has the legislature's back.

And in May he went on his infamous tear about the federal judiciary, blasting the judges "common and systematic abuse of our federal courts"—never mind that at this point the majority are Republican appointees. (If anyone was wondering whether McCain would toe the line and appoint archconservative justices in the model of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, as he'd promised, this should have quelled such doubts.)


that dscredits the whole article....

the liberal court of the generation preceding these conservative replacements was the guilty party that would rear its ugly head again and "legislate from the bench" as before, and that is what McCain is talking about.

Ignorance is no excuse for spouting lies and spin on McCain's wrds.

It is this younger generation that the socialist democrats would deceive and misguide in an attempt to garner their votes with such sensationalism and through the use of distressing emotionalism.

pity.

only the socialist view is predominate in the institutions of higher learning.

Some day, you youngsters are going to figure that out.

When you do, don't become the abuser that they have.

They hated LBJ for the war in Viet Nam and took it out on everybody but themselves.

they are still doing that today, in everything they are about.

Our Executive Branch is RESPONSIBLE for keeping the Judicial Branch in line as part of the checks and balances placed in the system by the founding fathers.

Our Federal Judges have at various times in the past let financial, personal, and political affiliations interfere with their required impartiality.

Any canditate for president needs to have the strength of charactor to stand up and name idiots when they perform in such a way as to hurt the common good IT IS IMO A PART OF THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF PRESIDENT.