Don't remember how I first happened upon this, but Obama gives brief answers to a number of such questions here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

David - Obama sucking up to AIPAC less than a day after he won the nomination shows that you cannot go by his past words. He will choose [C] and actively use them to impose his will on Congress.

Obama has publicly stated that one of his top priorities for his first 100 days is to review Bush/Cheney's power-grabbing and get rid of anything he and his advisors deem illegitimate. It's not specific, but sounds like a pretty strong promise.

"...During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,� said Obama..."
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/05/28/bushs-laws-will-be-scrutinized-if-i-become-president-obama-says/

My question is this: How do you prevent any future president from duplicating Bush's abuses of power when the theory that underpins them is "We can do whatever we want"? Or, to put it another way, what law, what constraint, what process, what anything could have stopped the current administration from breaking the law, politicizing the justice department, and thumbing their nose at Congressional oversight? The answer is that nothing could have accomplished that unless the measure in question was explicitly backed up with the threat of impeachment or some other punitive measure.

The greatest failure of the Bush years was the failure of Congress to remove him from office. It was at least comprehensible when the GOP was in charge. That the Democrats failed to do it will have repercussions for many, many years to come, regardless of who we elect in November.

I would like to see discussion of how these usurped powers can best be eliminated in a relatively permanent way. Actions with some degree of effectiveness can be taken by the President, by Congress, and by the courts. Presumably (this being, as we have seen, a soft area) no single action can be truly decisive, hence multiple actions could have an additive effect.

What are the effective actions? How might they be coordinated? What are the political prospects for getting them to happen?

The Constitution gives Congress enormous powers relative to the Presidency. For example, the President has extraordinarily limited power to appoint anyone to "his" executive branch without either approval by Congress, or by means of power delegated by Congress. He does, however, have the power to "require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments". Note in particular the Presidential responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (that is, the laws made by Congress).

Article II, Section 2 is brief and makes an interesting read.

David Bailey,

Thanks for the Boston.com link. You're the first commenter and the link you cite pretty much sums up Obama's public position on matters of executive power. I'm surprised Mr. Glastris wasn't aware of Obama's numerous statements on these issues. I, for one, take Obama at his word.

How to limit Presidential powers in perpetuity? A constitutional amendment outlawing signing statements and selective enforcement of congressional laws would probably go a long way in that direction. It's possible but not very likely.

..................................................
If he's [Obama] elected president, will he A] publicly disavow these extra powers (like expanded use of signing statements to override Congress) that his predecessor claimed, or B] stay largely mum about those powers, neither using nor disowning them, thereby keeping them "in reserve" for use if and when he feels he needs them?
..................................................

Since you've posted this as a question you'd like to put to a panel I'd like to point out that I think it's the wrong question. What you've left open is the personal discretion of an existing president. That is the problem. It should not be the choice of a president to act as a king or act as a president, one branch of three presiding over a nation of laws with the primary law being the constitution. The question that should be asked is would Obama make a test case of the various methods of abuse of power by 'president' Bush and if "the people" should lose those cases, would he make an issue of the matter and call for amendments to the constitution to ensure that biased politically motivated judges cannot "king" a favored president. I'm ignoring that the politically motivated "Supreme" court could decide in a non sequitur manner, which would require a further test case to pin down the quail hunt vacationers.

Those are excellent questions, and nobody seems to be entertaining them (yet). Sounds like a promising discussion, but is there any chance of a transcript being made available at some point afterwards? What about video or audio?

Yeah, as nepeta said, good job by David Bailey right off the bat pointing to Obama's answers to the questions from Charlie Savage. (Figure a clickable link's even better, though; still, David Bailey's the man.) Even if we choose not to trust Obama's answers, they're definitely out there and address meaningfully the Glastris curiosity.

Relatedly, Charlie Savage's book Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy is fascinating, horrifying, edifying, and valuable reading for anyone who's at all interested, let alone concerned, about this issue.

Heh. I just realized that NYT article by Savage (who recently moved from the Boston Globe to the Times) that provoked this post in the first place references Savage's December Globe interview with McCain, which was the same set of questions posed to and answered by Obama (and several other then-candidates, who are now less relevant).

The reason for the NYT article that got Paul's attention is that McCain keeps contradicting those answers from December, whereas Obama hasn't yet.

I was posing essentially this question early in the primary season. I always got slapped down by a statement like: "It is not the presidents perogative to give back unconstitutional powers, it is congresses duty to forcefully take them away". I think this is essentially correct, the big failing was/is that congress has abrogated their responsibility in these matters. I would still find it mildly reassuring to have a president that didn't want to use/keep them, but the main fight has got to be to reestablish the separation of powers by electing a congress that will take its responsibility seriously.

I think the big O should use those article 2 powers to gitmo a select list of troublemakers from this administration and then negotiate with congress to let them go provided laws are enacted that no future administration can legally lay claim to those powers. Exercise and then disavow and surrender. Yup. That should do it. If we can't impeach now then take the constitutional crisis to the next level in the next term and bring this sorry chapter in american history to a just conclusion.

The thing zenster666 appears to be missing is that the problem is the Bush-Cheney administration (and those who agree with it, such as, it would seem now, John McCain) holds that the presidency has inherent and exclusive powers that Congress cannot restrict. That is, they actually assert that laws do not apply to them. They argue that Article II makes it unconstitutional for Congress to limit the president's power. It's revolting, but that's their position.

So it doesn't do any good, with a president who asserts that, to have passed more legislation in 2009 that says the president must obey the laws that Congress passes. Say somehow Giuliani were to become president in 2013. Pursuing the Cheney vision, he would just say that the 2009 law didn't bind him to following FISA any more than the original FISA legislation itself did.

So the assertive Congress bigTom describes is as necessary as he says. The advantage here of Obama is that he might not make things much worse while McCain likely will.

(Probably they both would make it somewhat worse--most presidents have since Truman or maybe FDR. It's just a question of how much.)

Yes, but holding those proponents of plenary powers hostage to the exercise of those powers (gitmo!) just might sour their appetite for the executive expansion of power. I'm talking about a choreographed demonstration of just how arbitrary and tyrinacal those powers might be and then a nice kabuki ending. Hey, it's just a day dream. Good luck with the stiffining of congress' backbone. And, yes, you are right about how each administration has advanced us to this sorry place. The executive branch has morphed into a cult. Was it always that way?

Fight the slap, bigTom. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution. It is both Congress and the President's responsibility.

Yeah, zenster666, I figured the part about Obama putting Cheney & Co. in Gitmo was mostly a daydream and, moreover, your means to the end of the legislation passed by Congress, which is why I focused on the legislation part.

You're right to be skeptical about the stiffening of Congress's backbone. I'm not at all confident there.

As to your last question, I'm no expert personally, but Savage convincingly argues in his book that that the imperial presidency really began its growth with FDR; the two major exceptions before that he points to are Lincoln & TR. It hit its pre-GWB peak with Nixon, was scaled back by Congress during the Ford administration, began growing again a little bit under Carter and much more under Reagan but never as much as under Bush-Cheney.

As to the cult-like aspects, I'm still looking forward to reading Gene Healy's new book The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. I expect that to be valuable in showing how things got this way.

Also, royalblue_tom is right that the president is sworn to uphold the Constitution, but when Cheney & Co. are able to flout laws, saying Article II gives the presidency virtually dictatorial powers, it sets precedents when Congress doesn't fight back. Those precedents likely won't get turned back simply by Obama choosing not to follow Bush's lead but only by some eventual villains similar to Bush-Cheney being successfully opposed by Congress.

You certainly don't have to worry about a President Obama abusing the Constitution.

The Supreme Court will see to that.

Of course, a President McCain is a very different matter.

"How much, in other words, should we be worried that the current administration's abuses of power will be baked into our system of government, no matter who prevails in November?"

You only have to worry about half of the potential administrations, Kevin.

That's because any Democrat who happens to reach the White House will find himself hounded and scourged by the establishment media until conservatives manage to seize effective political power. See Clinton, Bill; Water, White; and Peachment, Im.

On the other hand, the next time we get a Republican president, we're all gonna be fucked again, and the media won't do a damn thing to help.

With apologies to Atrios, this has been an (almost) simple answer to a (not quite) stupid question.

This article came out in April. Baby steps...but necessary:

Senate panel advances state secrets bill

"Thu, Apr 24, 2008 (3:22 p.m.) A Senate panel advanced a bill Thursday that would limit how and when a president can withhold evidence from courts considering lawsuits against some of his most controversial policies. By 11-8, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill limiting the so-called "state secrets privilege," a frequent legal defense President Bush uses to withhold evidence from plaintiffs in suits challenging his anti-terrorism methods. The bill is not expected to receive a final vote this year. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has signaled that Bush would veto it, and Republicans could deny supporters the votes to override. The measure would set rules for asserting the privilege........."

I second the question of a transcript, audio, or video of that conference. That would be interesting, and quite informative to be sure.

You obviously don't listen to Bill Moyers Journal. He did several programs with constitutional scholars who said it was essential Bush be impeached so that the next president not assume these overriding powers.

Leaders generally want more and more power rather than giving any back.

Bush still needs to be impeached. If he didn't commit high crimes and misdemeanors... it is just outrageous.

You obviously don't listen to Bill Moyers Journal. He did several programs with constitutional scholars who said it was essential Bush be impeached so that the next president not assume these overriding powers.

Leaders generally want more and more power rather than giving any back.

Bush still needs to be impeached. If he didn't commit high crimes and misdemeanors... it is just outrageous.