The American Spectator

Mary| 12.22.08 @ 11:56AM

Will is a really smart guy. A guy you can learn a lot from because he knows and loves history.

How depressing is the following?

Evidence that casualness about legality is inherent in big government is found in H.W. Brands's new biography "Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt." FDR became president on Saturday, March 4, 1933. Banks were closed that day and the next, temporarily preventing panicked depositors from withdrawing their money. At 1 a.m. Monday, FDR ordered all banks closed for four days, hoping that the fever would break. His act may have been prudent. But was it legal? Brands writes:

"He cited a section of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act as justification. The act had never been formally repealed, but a body of legal theory held that the law, along with other wartime legislation, had expired upon the signing of the peace treaty with Germany in 1921."

FDR had asked the opinion of his as-yet-unconfirmed attorney general, Montana Sen. Thomas Walsh, who gave the answer FDR wanted. Walsh never had to defend this: He died March 2 en route to the inauguration.

The expansion of government entails an increasingly swollen executive branch and the steady enlargement of executive discretion. This inevitably means the eclipse of Congress and attenuation of the rule of law.

For decades, imperatives of wars hot and cold, and the sprawl of the regulatory state, have enlarged the executive branch at the expense of the legislative. For eight years, the Bush administration's "presidentialists" have aggressively wielded the concept of the "unitary executive" -- the theory that where the Constitution vests power in the executive, especially power over foreign affairs and war, the president is immune to legislative abridgements of his autonomy.

The administration has not, however, confined its aggrandizement of executive power to national security matters. According to former representative Mickey Edwards in his book "Reclaiming Conservatism," the president has issued "signing statements" designating 1,100 provisions of new laws -- more designations than have been made by all prior presidents combined -- that he did not consider binding on him or any other executive branch official.

This is why conservatives are orphans today.

Jeremiah| 12.22.08 @ 3:53PM

To say government is "big" is to use an uninteresting and vague metaphor.

40% of the national debt was accumulated under R. Reagan and GHW Bush, yet both of these men talked constantly about the need for a "smaller" government.

What this country needs is SMART, competent, responsible governance. It sure didn't get that during these past 8 years. We'll see what we see during the next 4.

Roy| 12.22.08 @ 4:43PM

Oh really - "vague"? "metaphor"? No, I think it has pretty hard meaning. Government consumption as a percentage of GDP is a good place to start.

Yes, Congressional Democrats did indeed succeed in growing the government during the presidencies of Reagan and Bush. You win some, you lose some.

But actually, I agree that raw numbers aren't the whole issue. I can justify a growinng government in which for instance we are hiring more FBI officers and soldiers. Not one that is growing because government is extending its responsibilities to places it has no business. And I don't give a single solitary smidgen of a hoot how much smarter the government bureaucrats who want to boss me around think they are than poor saps like me. But because liberals worship at the altar of individual intelligence the answer is: not at all.

What government needs to do is recognize its limitations. I see no sign that Obama is going to do this.

Shawn Macomber| 12.22.08 @ 6:25PM

Why do I get the feeling "SMART" is an uninteresting and vague metaphor for "BIG"?