Glenn identifies precisely the problem with Congress sitting back and letting Obama "fix the Bush mess" by himself. The problem is that Obama -- no, any one person who happens to be the President -- has no actual self-interest in actually divesting himself of the powers that Bush illicitly has accrued to the office.

It's swell to hope that Obama is going to act "nicely" and rein in Bush's transgressions, but if all he does is what he's willing to do (thus leaving in place "certain things"), and if he only does so by Executive Order, then Congress' abdication of the responsibility to enforce the Constitution's checks and balances means (1) President Obama has enhanced, not constricted, Presidential authority by exercising even more of it unchecked by congressional oversight, and (2) that's the constitutional legacy Obama's presidency will be argued, by successor presidents, to have been created and confirmed by Congress' inaction.

Exactly when does Congress think it will have some role to play in this?

It makes undeniable sense for President-Elect Obama to "make nice" with the Bush administration between now and January 20. Does the same hold logically true for Congress? Absolutely not. Congress should be wanting to establish what the ground rules are or should be concerning Executive Branch obligations to respect the constitutional limitations on the President's power, and Congress should be saying so right exactly now. Deferring to Obama's wishes without debate is, as a matter of how our government is laid out by the Constitution, exactly the wrong thing to be doing right now.

Obama can prepare his administrative transistion while Congress reasserts its role in governance, doing one does not foreclose the other. Obama should stay out of Congress' way on this pivotal issue, not presume to direct it. Obama has an inherent, structural "disqualifying bias" on the issue, no matter how wunnerful he may be personally. It does not help the country to solve the constitutional abuses of Bush to cede unilateral "make it right" authority to Obama that is itself in excess of what the Constitution contemplates.

...without posting that Bush should be impeached.

But this thread confirms the wisdom of my boring repetition of that observation.

A subsequent president issuing executive orders reversing the executive orders of his/her predecessor may accomplish many positive results, but it can't change what the Constitution is or is not enforceably understood to allow. For example, an "executive order" rejecting the Bush administration's characterization of "the Unitary Executive Theory" won't establish any rule enforceable against any President. Even if Obama was magnanimous to agree and abide his own order to that effect, that order could be rescinded by himself or by his predecessor(s). And, it logically follows, if that's the case why would any President offer to restrict the office's power in such a fashion? To use the examples thrown around here, what if the President had a "really important good idea" that happens to exceed the Constitution unless the President reserves unto himself a claimed right to exceed the Constitution if he thinks it's a really good idea?

Issuing legitimate executive orders is not what is at stake.

It's protecting the Constitution against usurpation that is at stake. What Bush has done should be met by a congressional determination that what Bush has done merits impeachment. The "lame duck" Congress could do that in the time remaining. Even if the Senate didn't "have time" to convict, the passage of Articles of Impeachment would stand for future reference of things that would result in impeachment. Could be. The point is, though, that President Obama can't do this, he couldn't cure many of Bush's eviscerations of the Constitution even if he wanted to, and he can't even be faulted under our system of checks and balances if he doesn't really want to....

It really is up to Congress. And Congress can and should be faulted if Congress pretends that addressing Bush's decimation of the Constitution should be left up to a president-elect.

Sorry I couldn't get through a whole day without saying "impeach Bush". It's bracing to know you're right about something all the time. I guess I'm beginning to understand how Jonah Goldberg must feel about everything....

Obama is going to have to govern "center-right". It was reported on Fox.

I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling in this establishment.

Let's not bicker and argue over 'oo killed 'oo.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Your turn.

Can't we just make fun of people who say stuff like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jO1EOhGkY0

The applicable lampoon starts about 5:40 into this scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.