'Imperiled' presidency

Sen. Ted Kennedy has an astounding revelation: "The president is not King George." \nWhat an insight from the senior senator of Massachusetts! It was only upon second thought that it occurred to me that Kennedy might have intended these words as a criticism of an "imperial presidency" (and not to discredit those who are persuaded that George W. is George III reincarnate). In authorizing the National Security Agency wider surveillance powers, he contends, President Bush has put on the clothes of an emperor. \nI am disturbed to read such sweeping condemnations of vital presidential powers. These slurs constitute assaults on the presidential prerogative -- the idea that, in times of national peril, the executive branch should retain latitude for decisive action. This is no argument for unfettered executive powers. Plenty of checks and balances exist, to be sure. But Article II of the Constitution makes clear that the president, as commander-in-chief, holds primary executive and war-making powers.\nThe constitutional scope of these powers used to be far better known than they are today. The primary force behind the president's grave obligation, and solemn oath -- prescribed by the Constitution -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, lies in the executive prerogative. This was included in the constitutional design as a corrective to the Articles of Confederation, which had placed onerous shackles on executive powers. \nIn the current debate, there is a rich irony, and yet it is rarely remarked upon by civil libertarians. If these self-styled sentinels succeed in weakening presidential authority, those charged with the defense of the union will be denied the intended and necessary means to actually defend it. And then the erosion of liberty would truly begin. As James Madison once reflected, liberty is equally exposed to danger whether the government has too much or too little power.\nAn observer could be forgiven for thinking that the president's political opponents wish to prevent the government from discharging its most necessary and legitimate purposes, e.g. providing for the common defense. Such critics seem to fit Alexander Hamilton's description that a "noble enthusiasm for liberty" often morphs into distrust for government power. \nAs I have argued in this space before, this distrust is held by those who reject that the "vigor" of government is essential to what Hamilton called "the security of liberty." Hamilton knew the only kind of government capable enough to fulfill its chief purposes was an energetic one, which is why he believed government is only another word for "political power and supremacy." \nFormer President Gerald Ford once complained that America had replaced an "imperial" presidency with an "imperiled" presidency. This criticism had regrettable merit when the lessons of Vietnam were still fresh in the national consciousness. But the way things are going, with the current president's powers waning, every American should take a moment before joining the hysterical Kennedy and consider Hamilton's preference that liberty be sufficiently armed to defend itself. If we do not, we may soon find out that Ford's lament is still applicable. \nGod help us if it is.