Patrick+D.

Patrick Donley Mr. Fryberger 10/4/11 Bush/Cheney lawsuit

The controversy that entailed the Bush/Cheney administrations goal to strengthen the power of the executive power was a very strained time. They believed that the president should have the power to control troops and do whatever is necessary to protect the welfare of their country. This is extremely difficult to look at from a legal standpoint, because it is both supported, and wronged by certain parts of the constitution. Checks and balances are a system of laws in the constitution between the three branches of our government, the legislative, judicial, and executive, which keep their power equal. The fastest moving of these three is the executive, which is exactly why the Bush/Cheney administration wants to give that particular branch more power. So that when needed, the president will have the power he needs to promote the welfare of their nation. The main promoter of executive power was Dick Cheney. He believed that a little secrecy is always a good thing when it came to public welfare, whether constitutional or not. He was grown to be known as a vigilante of congress. His tactics were looked at by some as inappropriate and illegal. In his quest, he hired David Addington, an extremely forceful and talented attorney. He was a lawyer in the CIA and is very well informed of the Cheney’s ideals. However their plan was to use the law to make this possible, so that it could be fully taken advantage of. However, a horribly drastic event changed the course of their front. The events that occurred on 9/11 completely changed the circumstances of this legal battle. On one hand, the country had gone under attack, which does open some doors for the president from a military standpoint. On the other, the country has a completely new outlook on their country. All of a sudden, we’re not as immortal as some people had previously thought. This changed how many people looked at the law. Is it really that important to do things completely constitutionally when were under attack? Cheney doesn’t think so. He is a realist when it comes to this. He believes that however important it may be to run the country by the constitution, it is more important to be able to protect your country by whatever means necessary. In conclusion, the difficulty of balancing the power of the fear and overwhelming safety measures is extremely involved. Expanded by 9/11, the fear of terrorism it higher now than ever. Knowing this it seems thoughtless that the president should be able to do what he has to do to protect his nation. However after some deeper though, doesn’t giving the president the power to do what he has to do without the approval of congress give him more power than the other branches? This is unconstitutional. The case presented by the group of John Yoo, David Addington, Bush and Cheney, was so controversial because it contradicted the very document that they swore to uphold. Part of their front came to be, such as the far looser standards of interrogation. This was alongside the crown jewel, which basically said that the government could spy on whoever they want, whenever they want. This video asked one simple question, what is too far.

