Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Hillary and Mississippi, part deux | Main | Perfect me, Ann Coulter »

Fred Thompson and executive power

October 25, 2007 6:28 PM

Abc_thompson_tapper_070613_mn

In 1974, the Nashville Tennessean quoted a 31-year-old lawyer named Fred Thompson -- the chief GOP counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee -- saying that since the nation was "really angered" by the Nixon administration's abuses of national security classifications, things would change.

"I think obviously that in the future the president is not going to be the sole individual to determine what is a matter of national security," Thompson said at the Austin Peay State University campus in Clarksville, Tennessee.

The newspaper reported that "Thompson suggested the possibility of an executive and legislative committee to take on the task."

Read the whole May 18, 1974 story HERE.

We asked Thompson about this in our Nightline swing through Florida with the former senator, turned GOP presidential candidate. (That full profile will air tonight on Nightline at 11:35 pm.)

"I thought I confiscated all of those," Thompson joked when I took out a copy of the article.

I suggested that if Thompson were to become president, he would likely not be in favor of this joint legislative and executive committee.

"My concern at that time of course was the abuses of the presidency at that time," Thompson said. "And clearly the president at that time had used the umbrella of national security to do some things that were not in fact in the interest of national security."

(You can watch this exchange, which we included in our Webcast story HERE.)

Thompson agreed that he didn't share the views of Vice President Cheney when it comes to the supremacy of the executive branch.

"No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that," he said. "The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it’s divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power."

Thompson described checks and balances as "a constant tug and pull. Controversy and differences of opinion over legitimate national security concerns is not a bad thing. Every branch needs to stand up for itself. And I saw that as, in effect, an attorney for the executive branch, and then as a legislator."

Thompson said he sides with the Bush administration in its struggle with Congress over "issues of surveillance," but he suggested in some of the cases on detainees that have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court he sides with the Congress.

Asked if there are any examples where you would side with the Congress over the executive branch in the past few years, Thompson said, "well, the courts have decided against the executive branch in some instances."

And you agree with the courts? I asked.

"Well, I can’t lump everything together," he said. "I don’t think anybody ought to be rubberstamped. No president should be rubber-stamped. But you have to stand firm in executive authority. All the executive authority rests in the president. So the cards are on the table and Congress is involved. And Congress can refuse funding to anything they have such strong disagreement with. You can’t just carp and criticize and go to court each time. You have to step up to the plate, and say, we’re going to cut off funding."

Thompson sees the power of the purse as Congress's "constitutional duty." Disagree with something the executive branch is doing -- cut off funding, he said.

"Each branch has its legitimate positions and the lines are clear in terms of their responsibilities," he said as we drove from Medley, Florida, to Fort Lauderdale. "The president is commander in chief. He has to stand strong for executive authority, because we’ve only got one president. Especially in times of conflict or emergency. On the other hand, Congress has an oversight responsibility. And I’ve been a part of that, in more than one occasion. Ultimately, if they disagree strongly enough with what the executive branch is doing, they can cut off funding for it."

Interesting stuff.

Watch Nightline tonight for more, or read this story about Thompson HERE...

-- jt

October 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/22766750

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fred Thompson and executive power:

User Comments

Interesting in that Mr. Thompson is consistent in his views about the checks and balances built into our system of government, but hardly newsworthy. If this is the best that can be done to generate any interest in his campaign, then his campaign is beyond resucitation.

Posted by: chuck | Oct 26, 2007 9:08:53 AM

Nice try, Jake, but it's entirely consistent to believe that a President who characterizes illegal activity as a "national security" is one thing, why it's something entirely different to assert that a President can ultimately decide if military action needs to be taken- both of these propositions are consistent with Fred's statements- 34 years ago.

Posted by: Vince | Oct 26, 2007 12:04:30 AM

Jake your slipping, why is this news, I mean every person has made speeches, and at this time it was about a supposed corrupt instance. Now why is there nothing about Hilary and her Marxist teacher?

I hope this not an attack on Fred, for flipping as other stations have done to the other repubs.

Posted by: spock | Oct 25, 2007 8:59:08 PM

Post a comment