[link|http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010014|Opinion journal]
Complaints against the "imperial presidency" are back in vogue. With a view to President Bush, the late Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. expanded and reissued the book of the same name he wrote against Richard Nixon, and Bush critics have taken up the phrase in a chorus. In response John Yoo and Richard Posner (and others) have defended the war powers of the president.

This is not the first time that a strong executive has been attacked and defended, and it will not be the last. Our Constitution, as long as it continues, will suffer this debate--I would say, give rise to it, preside over and encourage it. Though I want to defend the strong executive, I mainly intend to step back from that defense to show why the debate between the strong executive and its adversary, the rule of law, is necessary, good and--under the Constitution--never-ending.

Interesting piece on strong executives from the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal.

He does make a good case on why an executive office is a good idea. And his point about this argument having gone on through out the history of the country is an important one to understand. But he goes too far when he says the point of the executive is go above the law during times of turmoil.

As to the contention that a strong executive prompts a policy of imperialism, I would admit the possibility, and I promise to think carefully and prayerfully about returning Texas to Mexico. In its best moments, America wants to be a model for the world, but no more. In its less good moments, America becomes disgusted with the rest of the world for its failure to imitate our example and follow our advice. I believe that America is more likely to err with isolationism than with imperialism, and that if America is an empire, it is the first empire that always wants an exit strategy. I believe too that the difficulties of the war in Iraq arise from having wished to leave too much to the Iraqis, thus from a sense of inhibition rather than imperial ambition.

That is wrong in several ways. But his bit about the Iraqi war is simply grossly wrong. And I think lets his real motivation slip, in that he is really trying to drum up support for Bush and the war in Iraq rather then Imperial presidency in general.

Jay