Un-presidented: An expansion of executive power unlike any other

    Many scholars contend that the trend in American politics has been for the President’s power to expand beyond the constitutional limits set for him. Certainly this has been the case throughout the 20th century, where various presidents have taken the liberty of suspending habeas corpus, or waging undeclared wars in other parts of the world (Vietnam and Cambodia). More recently, the President, thanks to the new National Defense Authorization Act earmark on the 2011 Defense Appropriations Bill, has been handed the power to violate our bill of rights under the pretext of fighting terror. This new bill allows the United States government to detain citizens without giving them a trial, or having to provide evidence of their supposed guilt. Furthermore, these individuals are left without any legal recourse, and therefore are left at the mercy of the bureaucratic behemoth that is the US Government. Essentially, the act allows the President to suspend the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights of American citizens, something which has not been done since the civil war. The Act has brought condemnation from prominent individuals such as Congressman Rand Paul from Kentucky, and the organization Human Rights Watch, which described the acceptance of this bill by the White House as “a historic tragedy for rights.” Kenneth Roth, the Executive director of Human Rights Watch claimed that “By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” Other prominent organizations  such as the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) cautioned that “it will damage both his legacy and America's reputation for upholding the rule of law,” 

          The passing of this bill has not been met with nearly enough rage and indignation from the public, which has remained mostly silent on the issue for now. It is disturbing that few, if any mainstream media networks have given this bill more than a minute’s consideration and coverage. Does the presidential oath mean nothing? Did our President not swear to uphold the constitution and defend it from threats both foreign and domestic on his inauguration day? President Obama has forsaken his sworn duty to uphold our constitution, and by extension, the rule of law. What makes this country different than the police states of South-east Asia and the Middle East, is the value and emphasis placed on due process of law. Due process, a right enshrined in the fifth amendment with roots in Britain’s Magna Carta, is one of the pillars upon which our free society stands. By abandoning this most sacred right, we abandon the principle of objective law, and are left at the mercy of the caprice of our government. We are suddenly no different than China, whose government has detained and imprisoned countless individuals deemed to be threats of some sort by the authorities. They too were denied the right to due process, and consequently lost their freedom and, in many cases, their lives. Due process is what keeps our government from arbitrarily imprisoning individuals, as it forces it to abide by certain rules and steps before taking away a person’s right to life, liberty or property. 
          Weeks ago, people were lauding Obama for his staunch opposition to the bill. Unfortunately, this threat to veto the bill did not have anything to do with any moral opposition he might have had to violating the constitution, rather he threatened to veto it because it contained language which would have protected US citizens from indefinite detention. It is frightening to think that we now live in a country where certain behavior or speech can land you in a federal prison camp indefinitely, without any need for proof to back up the charged levied against you. Often we will hear from various politicians that the terrorists we now fight, hate us for our freedom, and seek to destroy us for it. How, then, does the Obama administration intend to fight this? By making sure that there is nothing for our enemies to attack us for? Nothing for the to fight to take away from us? It is tragic that our leaders consider debasing our higher law to be an appropriate strategy for protecting it. It is that our elected officials claim to fight terrorism by doing what no terrorist could ever dream of doing, subverting our way of life and obliterating one of the bedrock principles of a free society. To call this proposed bill, its articles, and clauses a “law” would be an indictment against the very principle of objective law and against our entire legal system. By accepting this bill, we accept that our government may take away our rights based on nothing more than suspicion, stemming from supposedly suspicious speech and behavior. One can only hope that this sickening trend will soon be reversed, for if it is not, our democratic model of government will devolve into little more than a dictatorial police state operating under the guise of a democracy.