Originally Posted by Botnst

You maybe right, I'm not sure what the word is when it comes to presidential precedent. I do know that the first Dubyuh (Washington) was hyper-aware that anything NOT specificially mentioned in the Constitution, that he did as an official act as president would establish precedent. And he was right.

The specific duties of the president outlined in the Constitution ain't much. It's often the unstated portions that define the president's powers both in limit and reach. Like the unwritten "Executive Privilege." Extraconstitutional but something that presidents jealously guard, regardless of party.

Bush is claiming the precedent of Carter and Clinton. (Which begs the question of why did Reagan not assert this power. He was the raving warmonger).

Presidential precedent doesn't work the same as court precedent. It can be overturned by public opinion or by Congressional legislation or by the courts.

It will be interesting to see how this one unfolds.

Bot