One of the key criticisms of American government has always been the growing power of the Presidential office.
But what it really comes down to is NOT the issue of Presidential authority per se, but rather the ideology and goals of the particular President.
Many have been condemnatory of Barack Obama for using his powers to employ drones against enemy combatants; allowing the killing of an American citizen (Anwar Al Awlaki) by missile strike for terrorist activities; increasing the number of Presidential aides in the White House; changing social policy by executive order; using signing statements to express reservations on bills passed by Congress; extending the Patriot Act and expanding the authority of the US government to monitor its citizens and arrest them; and employing US troops overseas without Congressional authority with his authority as Commander in Chief.
But except for Ron Paul, all of the Republicans competing for the Presidential nomination would use the same strategies and tactics, but maybe in a way that many who support Barack Obama would not approve.
The office of the Presidency has been growing in power by leaps and bounds for a century now, starting with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and expanding greatly starting with the Great Depression and World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Cold War under Harry Truman and all of his successors, and then the War on Terror from Bill Clinton on to Barack Obama.
Nothing in reality is going to stop this trend, and the Supreme Court itself has rarely stepped in to limit executive authority, and this perfectly demonstrates that the Constitution has been widened in its meaning, even by so called “conservative” Supreme Court Justices who have no problem with the expansion of federal executive authority.
So instead of limited government, all of the GOP candidates except Ron Paul, believe in expansive government when it comes to executive authority.
The idea of limiting Presidential authority is just that, an idea. The key issue is not that, but who to TRUST with that authority, so as not to undermine our American system of government!
Ron,
You mentioned “that the Constitution has been widened in its meaning”. How could it not. Even Ron Paul when he was speaking at a diner in NH at a “grip and grin” event made a statement about possible federal regulations on cell phone usage said the following (quoted verbatim):
“I went to the Constitution and there’s nothing in there about telephones”.
How can we realistically interpret the Constitution strictly the “way the Founding Fathers intended” when the founding fathers could not possibly fathom about 90% of the issues facing the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government today?
Although presidential candidates (of either party) may disapprove of the job a current president is doing, it is highly unlikely that any of them will call for a reduction in the scope of executive powers. Even after the excesses of Richard Nixon, presidents didn’t scramble to reduce the powers of the office, they shifted their message to focus on honesty and integrity. The notion of separate but equal branches is only a fantasy, as the president has enjoyed increasing deference from the courts, and even congress on many occasions. The real question for voters, as you pointed out, is how wisely will that candidate use this expanded executive authority.