Approximately 50 students filled an uncharacteristically well-lit Eclectic yesterday afternoon to hear about the history and future of presidential power from a uniquely qualified expert.
Philip Lacovara, a legendary lawyer who argued in the 1974 United States v. Nixon case, warned of the dangers of excessive presidential power. Lacovara also discussed which current presidential candidate he believes will reverse the regrettable trend of an increasingly powerful executive branch that has characterized much of President George W. Bush’s presidency.
“How did we get here?” Lacovara asked in his beginning remarks. “Blame George Washington.”
Revisiting the precedents for misuse of the presidency, Lacovara argued that many previous abuses of power derived from the president’s role as commander-in-chief—a position, he said, that was designed for Washington, a military general.
Washington, Lacovara said, used military power without a Congressional declaration of war, a practice that has been repeated in 250 incidences by nearly all presidents. Lacovara pointed out that many presidents who are commonly deemed great, including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, have sacrificed civil liberties for some form of national security.
George W. Bush’s civil liberty abuse is beyond even what military leaders support, Lacovara said, noting that there are military leaders who actively oppose Bush on the use of wiretapping and on interrogation techniques. Bush, he said, is pushing to give the CIA more power to interrogate than the military is willing to use.
Denial of civil liberties and torture, Lacovara said, are supported by the majority of the American people due to a shift in public attitude after 9/11. He partially attributed this shift to popular culture, specifically shows like “24” which glorify Americans torturing terrorists.
“We are not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past,” Lacovara remarked, before moving into a discussion of the 2008 election.
Of the presidential candidates, he thinks Arizona Senator John McCain would be most able to rein in presidential power, given his history as a soldier and a prisoner of war.
“He’s already proven that he’s not a wimp,” Lacovara said.
He argued that both Senators Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be in a difficult spot because they would be pressured to prove they can “come down hard” and show strength in the “War on Terror.”
To truly rein in presidential power, he said, it will take a president with personal restraint as well as a courageous Congress and judiciary that could stand up to that president.
Lacovara has a strong background in the law of presidential power, having argued more than a dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including the aforementioned case United States v. Nixon, which rejected the notion of absolute executive privilege and ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over more damning tapes amidst the infamous Watergate scandal. Lacovara is currently the head of pro bono work for Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, one of the world’s biggest law firms.
The lecture was organized by Eclectic member Andrea Neustein ’09, who had audited a class with Lacovara at Hunter College and kept in touch with him. She said when she “vaguely suggested” he come and give a talk, he eagerly agreed. The lecture, Neustein said, was organized because during this election season people are thinking especially hard about the presidency and issues of presidential power.
Leave a Reply