That’s a quote from William G. Andrews, from his chapter on “The Presidency, Congress, and Constitutional Theory,” in this book.
I am going to try to keep track of instances of this phenomena by making it a “continuing series” on the blog… It was dubbed “situational constitutionalism,” by – I believe – Norman Ornstein (p. 4). Here is a book length application of the idea to 20th century American politics by J. Richard Piper. The first page of Piper’s introduction:
“Author of Conscience of a Conservative and recognized leader of the conservative movement in the United States, Barry M. Goldwater spoke for most of his ideological supporters as he campaigned against a strong presidency in 1964 even while he sought the presidential office. Goldwater reserved special denunciation for those who ‘hail the display of Presidential strength simply because they approve of the result reached by the use of power. This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the ends justify the means.’ Seven years later, Goldwater declared: ‘I would put more faith in the judgment of the Office of the President at this time than I would Congress.’ Moreover, Goldwater was now an enthusiastic supporter of institutional prescriptions giving the presidency the upper hand over Congress on such important matters as war powers and budgetary powers. Conservatives increasingly joined Goldwater in endorsing presidential primacy. Meanwhile, a shift at least equally dramatic was occurring among liberal Democrats — in the opposite direction!”
This video makes the Democrats look hypocritical, but one could easily put together the mirror image video of the Republicans defending the “nuclear option” in 2005, and decrying it in 2010…
File this under: “under-appreciated shortcoming of dividing or sharing power in the traditional way.”
