With little over a year to go in his presidency, it seems clear to many administration watchers that George W. Bush is desperately trying to redefine his legacy. Sadly, it's just too late to redefine a presidency that has not only tarnished the Bush legacy but torn at the very heart and soul of America.
In his blog "We The People", Charles Amico listed the many things for which the Bush Administration will likely be remembered. It's not a pleasant read. There is a reoccurring theme throughout. The Bush administration will probably be best known for it's repeated disregard for the Constitution and the will of the American people.
History will be the ultimate decider.
Bush Isn't The Only Decider
By Bruce Ackerman
Despite the show at Annapolis, this week's main diplomatic initiative has concerned Iraq, not Israel.
Without any fanfare, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki announced that the United States and Iraq will begin negotiating a long-term agreement that will set the terms of Washington's Iraq policy for "coming generations."
President Bush is again in legacy mode.
Douglas Lute, explained that the administration intends to reach a final agreement between the two countries by July 31, 2008.
In describing the negotiations, he made a remarkable suggestion: Only the Iraqi parliament, not the U.S. Congress, needs to formally approve the agreement.
American presidents do have unilateral authority to make foreign agreements on minor matters.
But the Constitution requires congressional approval before the nation can commit itself to the sweeping political, economic and military relationship contemplated by the "declaration of principles" signed by Bush and Maliki to kick off the negotiations.
But there is no constitutional provision or precedent authorizing this new form of Bush unilateralism.
To the contrary, presidential practice has been regulated by State Department guidelines set down in 1955.
These principles emphasize the need for congressional approval when an agreement "involves commitment or risks affecting the nation" and when it requires "the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress."
If such guarantees don't require congressional consent, the constitutional separation of powers is at an end.
The Constitution insists that Congress must get into the act before we make sweeping commitments in the name of the nation.