At one point while discussing executive department involvement in coups of foreign government, Stephen Kinzer in Overthrow notes that they were done "in strict accordance with the laws of the United States." The meaning of this statement was that they were "not rogue operations" because the President authorized them, while the CIA had the power respecting "duties related to intelligence affecting the national security." This is insane. Intel does not mean promoting coups. And, part of "the laws" at stake here is the U.S. Constitution.
This document gives the power to wage war on other nations -- including overturning their lawfully obtained governments without congressional authorization, even if in some fashion they are deemed threats to our economic imperialist goals. Kinzer writes about the misguided nature of these fiascos, the often unintended consequences (the 1980s was a direct result of our overturning Iran leadership in the 1950s), and the path of ignorance (notwithstanding expert, repeatedly including on ground intel) that guided them.
But, you simply cannot ignore the fact that the whole affair of executive led coups is simply unconstitutional. It is not what the President has the authority to do on his own. Not understanding the point is scary -- if you start with one hand tied behind one's back, the end result of dropping the ball all too predictable. The theme sadly seems to be repeated all too often. To take a past example. Slavery is deemed a necessary evil. This starts one on a road to perdition, since those who want to end it -- and there were ways to go in that respect -- are deemed utopian. The best one could hope for was benign treatment and limiting the problem, but things were not so easily cabined.
And, the system is by design not benign. Sorta like now -- you entrust the President with too much power, and find it unfortunate when he abuses it. As a letter to the editor in yesterday's NYT noted, who in the heck is surprised at this? No need to be too predictable here, though -- accepting the unacceptable is shown in various cases in various contexts. Sometimes, however, fundamental lines must be drawn. Basic truths faced.
[Somewhat on point, at the supermarket today I saw an interesting paperback version of key Bible stories, written in prose and supplied with secular commentary. Puts things in a different light -- for instance, King Solomon was damned for having a harem of women for whom he had shrines built to serve their gods. This was heresy. But, looked at differently, it had a freedom of religion flavor that later benefited the Jews when the Persians and Romans allowed subjects to practice their own religions. The "given" was in hindsight not ideal.]