Nobody Named Bush King Yet

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, under pressure from Congress, now says he will testify Dec. 6 before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the more controversial elements of President Bush’s recent executive order, which includes the authorization of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists. But the belated and grudging manner in which Ashcroft agreed to be questioned by his former colleagues is just one more indication of the Bush administration’s baffling willingness to sacrifice its once fruitful partnership with Congress.

If Congress had bridled at any effort by the White House to combat terrorism, or if members had signaled that they would be unwilling to entertain novel or unconventional methods to thwart the enemies of this country, the unilateralism of the White House might have made sense. Yet no such protests were uttered on Capitol Hill.

When the president issued his executive order Nov. 13 for the military tribunals, for the interrogation of 5,000 men of Middle Eastern origin and for eavesdropping on lawyer-client conversations, he caught Congress flat-footed.

In a letter from Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy to Ashcroft, the Vermont Democrat complained that at no time during anti-terrorism bill negotiations did administration officials give any indication that they intended to unilaterally claim authority to monitor confidential lawyer-client communications.

It appears that the unilateralism of the Bush administration, so recently abandoned in foreign policy, has taken root at home.

The U.S. Constitution proclaims that “the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States.” It does not say that exclusive power shall be vested in the president. Yet that seems to be the interpretation placed on its responses to terrorism in recent weeks by the Bush administration.

After a promising collaborative beginning with the Congress on the USA Patriot Act, the key piece of anti-terrorism legislation passed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the president stuck his thumb in lawmakers’ eyes and kept it there for several weeks.

If, as President Bush has often said, the fight to root out terrorism worldwide will be a protracted struggle, there would seem to be every reason to get Congress on board rather than having it bobbing in the wake of an administration determined to proceed at flank speed into perilous waters.

The great surge of patriotism that followed the outrages of Sept. 11, and the exhilaration that has come from humbling the Taliban, will surely fade. A twilight struggle against terrorism without graphic images of combat may make it more difficult for the White House to whip up public enthusiasm. It will also make it imperative that Congress be as amenable to spending money as it has been over the past two months. Members of Congress will demand a full stake in policymaking, not a junior partnership.

What makes the president’s airy disdain for Congress even more puzzling is that he cannot even defend his executive order as a necessary device to circumvent partisan obstructionism.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate are as sullen and rebellious as the Democrats. This is a case of institutional disrespect and, although it may not be unconstitutional, it is certainly anti-constitutional in spirit. To be sure, the president is now riding high, but the race is not his alone to run.

As Rep. Thaddeus Stevens reminded the White House in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1867: “Though the president is commander in chief, Congress is his commander; and, God willing, he shall obey. He and his minions shall learn that this is not a government of kings and satraps, but a government of the people, and that Congress is the people.”