I have to wince just a bit at Byrd being called a constitutional scholar... scholar hardly seems to fit.. and while I've never made fun of his age (and won't start now).. he does appear disconnected.
But, his aides reflect his long time philosophies, and one of them has been to jealously guard legislative power. And I'm glad that someone is.. the Republicans need to (as Ann Coulter says..) "grow a pair" and start acting like the loyal opposition, which is an essential check and balance. It's a shame that Robert Byrd has to do it.
And, for very practical reasons, regardless of party affiliation, this is a good idea. I know it seems that right now the Repubs are down for the count, but anyone that thinks there won't be another Republican president (or congress) is living in a dream world.
And the precedent of moving all power into the hands of white house staffers, normally neither confirmed or overseen by congress, is a defacto usurpation of the legislative branch.
I didn't vote for Obama, and think most of his policies are harmful in any case, but I felt the same way about Bush in this area. And in a very practical sense, Bush's snubbing of congress, for instance, in many areas surrounding the war on terror worked against him. I never understood why he didn't put the legislative decisions squarely in congress' hands, and make them put up or shut up on the war. "OK senators.. what do YOU want to do with captured terrorists? Tell us and then live with your decisions"
By doing what he did, he allowed them to demagogue him constantly, playing to their lunatic base, without any real consequence of doing so.
And (back to my partisan self), set up the man child we have as president now.
