Citizenship

Representative to Popular Form

June 7th, 2016 // 10:12 am @ Sara DeMille

Guest Post by Ian Cox

Midlife Crisis of U.S. Politics?

Most voters think that whichever candidate gets the most votes will take the nomination for their party, but the reality is more complex.

More people are hearing about the “contested convention” that looks likely for the Republican Party. Even the Democratic race has seen a similar shake up: Sanders often takes the popular vote, but Clinton wins more delegates.

As Ezra Klein from vox.com put it:

“Americans believe their elections are far more democratic than they actually are, and that’s because the most undemocratic institutions—like super delegates and the Electoral College—tend to follow the popular will. But that’s because the popular will is usually clear and easy to follow.

“This is a year, in other words, when voters on both sides will be looking for reasons to doubt the results of their primaries. And they will find plenty of them.”[1]

In a contested convention for the Republican Party most delegates will be able to vote however they would like. This will probably leave their constituents back at home a little upset if they don’t follow the popular vote. Maneuvering has already been taking place to get delegates who are sworn to one candidate by their State’s popular vote, but who would vote for another candidate in case of a contested convention.

Democrats have super delegates who aren’t tied to popular vote and can cast their vote wherever they see fit. They may “pledge” to one candidate during the primaries and this usually coincides with the popular vote of their state, but it doesn’t have to.

These are just two aspects of the labyrinth of a republican form of government. In other words, a government by delegation or by representation. Every state has its own method of voting for the president, as well as party rules, and how the state itself runs.

Which One?

The question arises here, are we a government of delegation or a government of popular vote? It seems that the people think it’s popular vote—and get confused, annoyed, and angry when thwarted. But the party leaders and government are living by the rules of representation (granted, this is pretty much by default because they are required by law to abide by these rules).

The people are playing Baseball while the delegates are playing Football, and the rules of the two games don’t mix very well. In the overlap, we’re getting major chaos and only one side can prevail.

Before we continue, let’s take a few steps back and take a good look at these two forms of government.

Popular vs Delegate Societies

A pure democracy exists where the majority decides what happens. If 51% of the population wants free health care, then it passes a law and it’s the duty of the officials to make it happen. If 49% wish for slavery, they can’t pass as law because there is no majority.

Things move quickly, and usually vehemently, in a society ruled by solely popular vote. Even Aristotle categorized democracy as a bad form of government. Most of the founding fathers studied many different forms of government as they were putting together the Constitution of the United States. John Adams said:

“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

Think of the book Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, or The Scarlett Pimpernel by Emma Orczy, or any history book covering the French Revolution, and you’ll get the picture of what everyone was so worried about when it comes to democracies.

On the other hand, a republican form of government exists where the populace gets together and votes for delegates or representatives who then decide what laws to establish. Instead of the populace voting for everything, their representatives or delegates take the duty to maintain society through necessary law-making and executing those laws. A classic example of this is the Roman Republic or the Roman Senate.

Another great example of this is our modern Presidential election. Every four years we have a national election—which is partly done by popular vote and partly done by a delegated vote, depending on the state—and a great number of citizens rally around this great cause. Once it is over most people hibernate again until something exciting comes along, like the next presidential election.

If you’d like to know more of what the role of the average citizen should be during this “downtime,” dig into these two books Oliver DeMille wrote for this very purpose:

Freedom Matters by Oliver DeMille
The U.S. Constitution and the 196 Indispensable Principles of Freedom by Oliver DeMille

What Is Our Identity?

When the endgame is unknown it’s pretty much impossible to win. If I’m given a golf ball on a soccer field, and I’m told to make the loop, what am I supposed to do? What if I’m not given any instructions? Am I supposed to be on offense? Defense? Maybe play goalie. Is there even supposed to be a goalie? Am I allowed to block, where am I to focus to help score, do what I want a high score or a low score? Is there a scoreboard?!

Not knowing what you don’t know can be very frustrating, stressful, and leave you without any hope of making progress. We no longer seem to be a nation with a unifying identity. A similar thing happened in the 1770’s between the colonies and the British, again in the 1850’s-60’s with the Northern States and the Southern States, also during the 1940’s with bigger government deals as well as global community issues. We’re in another such period; over the next few years we will likely see society shift again in major ways.

Will it be a shift towards more opportunity, success, and freedom, or something worse?

What is the Coming Shift?

It might be too soon to tell, but this presidential race might just be an omen of the coming shift; a microcosm of what the future holds for the “United” States of America.

This disconnect and misunderstanding of how the elections actually work could be the perfect setting for a democratic revolt. The populace might demand, despite whatever laws, rules, and constitutional measures are in place, that government listen to the voice of the people. To do what the people vote for and right away. No more of this arguing, debating, and political maneuvering in Congress. Let’s get it done!

The checks, balances, and the democratic republican constitutional form of government we now see hanging by a thread could very well be severed and swing us heavily towards a government by the whims of men.

Now, because of the numbers, I know many who read this will still be asking: but why is this shift a bad thing? Isn’t it bringing us more freedom? Isn’t it getting the people what they have so long desired? No more ridiculous laws or government officials telling us what we can and cannot do; we will take the responsibility in our own hands!

If men were angels this would probably work out much better, but as history has shown again and again this is not the case. Remember the quote by John Adams earlier? Remember your French Revolution history? Logically we might “know” these things, but still! Look at what’s happening today in our society. The people are being held back as corruption in high places seeps further and further.

Who will win this fight? The corrupting upper crust of society, or the beaten down and squished populace?

Or is there a third option?

Another Way

Think of it this way: when societies were ruled by the whims of the masses, the leaders that rose to the top were Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Nero, and the like. Historically these are the type of men, and women, who rise to the top and gain control.

On the flip side of this coin is the rule of the wealthy or privileged. Enter the Feudal Age and the ancient and modern systems of slavery. King Henry the VIII wasn’t elected or put on the throne by a revolution of discontented people, he was born into the position. He was at times just as bad for the people and to the people as the tyrants mentioned before. That’s because these monarchs or oligarchies still rule by the whims of men.

What our Founders did differently—as did every other truly free people in the history of the world—was study freedom deeply, and then build organizations or communities that solved the issues of their time. In other words, they took responsibility to get things done themselves, and they developed their leadership to make sure their ventures and communities would succeed.

Let’s Pay the Price

What every free people in the history of the world did different was set up checks and balances, forms and processes, and auxiliary precautions to guard against these destructive tyrants, both of the general people as well as the individual tyrant and everything between. It’s safer in the long run to establish laws, rules, and forms that are no respecters of persons. This has been the formula for establishing freedom for generations.

This means the rules of the game must be understood and upheld by the masses. If the average citizen doesn’t, then we’ll quickly learn to vote for any and every benefit we can. Or we’ll have the threat of having our representatives and upper crust of society take power and rule with an iron fist—squashing the general populace.

I’m not saying the current forms and systems are perfect, but we should understand why they were established in the first place. If we throw off the bonds that make us free we will quickly spiral into an era of major losses of freedom and opportunity for generations to come.

Let’s pay the price of understanding the rules of the game to maintain freedom.

[1] “This presidential campaign is developing a legitimacy problem,” by Ezra Klein Vox.com, April 19, 2016

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Current Events &Government &Independents &Liberty &Politics

Why Doesn’t America Elect Many Great Leaders to the Presidency?

April 25th, 2016 // 5:40 am @ Oliver DeMille

Then and Now

Over a century ago the British historian James Bryce travelled the United States to discover what had changed since Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America. One of the most interesting topics he wrote about was, “Why Great Men Aren’t Elected President in the United States.” (James Bryce, The American Commonwealth.)

Bryce noted that during the founding era, the greatest men in the nation rose to the presidency—Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc. But as time passed, this tradition changed. (see ibid.)

“Why?” Bryce wondered. His answer is instructive today: the greatest leaders in the nation don’t even try to become president. (Ibid.) They don’t want the job. It is true that Washington didn’t seek the position, but after John Quincy Adams—with the exception of Lincoln—the greatest leaders actively shied away.

At the time Bryce described this phenomenon, it could be explained by showing that the presidency wasn’t the real seat of power. (Ibid.) This reality dominated for a long time after Bryce, in fact. Congress wielded great influence during the long progressive era (from 1890 to 1970), and the Court increased its power as well—a major frustration for Wilson and FDR. William Howard Taft, for example, who served in Congress, as president, and on the Court, had less influence in the White House than the other positions.

Tragedies

In the post World War II era, however, the executive branch greatly increased its power—both literally (with huge additional powers in foreign relations and budgetary influence) and relatively (largely because Congress stopped effectively or frequently using the purse strings as a serious check or balance). If lack of power is the reason the greatest leaders didn’t aim for the Oval Office a century ago, what is the reason now? The power of the presidency is immense. It is often referred to—and seen by the populace—as the most powerful job in the world.

Why don’t the very best leaders want it? Is it because the party system has become so strident that anyone elected will spend as much or more time fighting partisan battles and attacks as governing? Is it because the perks of the office are so much less than the soaring benefits of corporate or business leadership? Is it because the headaches and problems are worse than other fields of leadership? Is it because the election process itself has become such a torturous ordeal? Or is there some other reason?

At this point I intended to list the names of a number of excellent leaders—from different walks of life and from both sides of the political aisle—who might put the current crop of candidates to shame in terms of leadership. But as I made the list it became clear that in the current political climate all of these men and women would quickly be turned into caricatures by the party system and the media. Just picturing them in politics somehow changes how we see them.

This is a central part of the problem. Here’s what I think it means: The system has become bigger than a candidate can ever hope to be. The job is simply so big (because the federal government is doing so many things never intended by the Constitution) that it has become…too big. It is too much for any one man or woman. The leaders with the most acumen and wisdom know this.

Those who don’t realize that this is the situation aren’t the best leaders because they don’t even understand the reality, and those who realize it but–want the job anyway–may not have the purest of intentions, in some cases. If Washington were pruned back to its literal Constitutional authority, the job would once again become manageable. But just like Washington is out of control, the position of president isn’t structurally up to the task.

The media has attempted to cope with this reality in two major ways: with humor or tragedy. Shakespeare took the same approach in dealing with European monarchies that had also become too big for one person—trying to run the executive, legislative, judicial, national and local all at once. His plots pit the character—man or woman—against the impossibility of the role. The result is either comedy or tragedy.

Icons and Candidates

In America, we tend toward tragedy. As Christopher Orr has pointed out (The Atlantic, March 2015, 56-59), America’s modern image of what our president should be was largely created by Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: A noble hero taking on a corrupt system. Though Stewart’s character was a Senator, the icon has been repeated in many popular American movies, television dramas, and books about the executive branch (e.g. Dave, The American President, West Wing, Air Force One, The Candidate, The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Madam Secretary, etc.).

These “tragedies” are more hopeful than their British counterparts, but the noble heroes never do truly change the system. They fight a noble fight, but the system ultimately prevails. Other recent American comedies or dramas about Washington (e.g. Veep, Scandal, House of Cards, State of Affairs, The Bourne Ultimatum, Political Animals, etc.) portray less-than-noble leaders who are simply part of the broken system. (see ibid.)

In contrast, Orr notes that many British portrayals of their prime minister emphasize humor or, in the case of the British version of House of Cards, the opposite of the American model: a prime minister who is truly conniving and dishonest working his schemes and plots in a government made up of basically well-meaning people (ibid., 57). But in America, “the one honest man” motif still dominates (ibid., 58).

In the real world, this icon has become part of the 2016 election in both major parties. Ted Cruz frequently invokes “the Washington Cartel” as the corrupt system and pits himself as the lone voice fighting its many nefarious agendas, while Bernie Sanders attacks the establishment as the great roadblock to American progress and happiness. Both promise to change Washington in drastic ways.

Donald Trump makes the same case, albeit in very different words: to make America great again, a true outsider with proven big business leadership is needed (because only such a background prepares one to manage the behemoth of a job, to fully understand the global economy and to lead the kind of “non-politician” projects and negotiations that will reboot our economy for real). A number of candidates have made similar outsider arguments (the noble hero rides Quixote-like to reform Washington), from Ben Carson and Rand Paul to Carly Fiorina and John Kasich.

Only Hillary Clinton isn’t closely aligned with this theme. Her message (which seems to vacillate between “it’s my turn” and “vote for experience”) is the opposite of “the one honest woman” icon. As a number of political experts have pointed out, Americans don’t tend to elect two consecutive presidents from the same party. When they do (i.e. Bush I, Johnson, Truman) it typically occurs after an exceptionally popular president (Reagan, Kennedy, FDR).

The New World?

Is Obama such a president? And can Secretary Clinton capture the nation’s attention and support? Such questions remain to be answered. But the biggest question of all—for America and the world—also remains to be seen. Will the next president turn out to be a great leader?

In a world with incredibly high-stakes challenges (including big power conflict between the U.S., China, Russia, Europe, etc.; the chaotic rise of new powers in the world including Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil, North Korea, Iran, and a half dozen others; getting a real solution for terrorism—just to name three), this is a serious issue indeed. And effectively rebooting our flagging economy is enough of a challenge for any leader ahead, and drastically needed.

But what if James Bryce is still right and in 2016, despite the serious need for real change, we don’t elect a great leader…?

Not a happy thought. As the primary season continues, the election itself is becoming an increasing anxiety for many Americans. A hard truth is presenting itself: It may just be that Washington isn’t going to have the answers after the next election, and that its dysfunction will actually increase. If that happens, the people of United States are going to need to find another way to fix things.

Category : Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Politics

A State of the 2016 Election Update by Oliver DeMille

February 29th, 2016 // 5:50 am @ Oliver DeMille

Update

Where does the election stand right now? It’s worth a quick overview. Let’s briefly compare each of the current candidates, why some have caught on and why others are still struggling:

Clinton

Her supporters like that she’s a long-time promoter of Democratic principles, and women’s issues. They like the historical potential of electing the first female president. They also like that she has long experience on both domestic and foreign policies.

Deal Breaker: “Selfishness.” Progressives and liberals who dislike Clinton frequently suggest that her election seems to be more about “her” than about what the nation needs. “It feels very self-centered, more focused on ‘It’s Hillary’s Turn’ than on improving the country.”

Sanders

Supporters genuinely like the idea of drastically changing America, providing free college for all, setting a national minimum wage of $15 (and rising), and taking from the 1% (and others) to spread more government programs to the rest of the people.

Deal Breaker: “Can’t Win.” His Achilles heel with many Democratic critics is that they don’t think a socialist can win the White House.

Trump

Supporters like that Trump projects strength and vision. They believe he’d quickly fix the economy, eradicate ISIS and make America’s military much stronger, and quickly fix the long-standing problem with illegal immigration. They like that he’s politically incorrect, and that he’s not a politician.

Deal Breaker: “The Jerk Factor.” A lot of voters simply won’t cast their vote for a person who calls names and seems to be consistently on the attack. Many are afraid that he’s a wildcard, that giving him power is very dangerous to America’s future.

Cruz

Supporters love that he’s strong on the Constitution and a proven conservative. They like that he wants to push back against the Washington Cartel (in both parties) and really return to constitutional principles.

Deal Breaker: “Trust.” A number of Republican critics say they just don’t quite trust him. He comes across a bit slick, wily, tricky. They say: “We like his constitutional views, but we don’t know when he’s telling the truth versus playing politician.”

Rubio

Supporters believe that his youth, good looks and Hispanic roots make him more highly enticing to the broad voting populace than anyone else running. They like that he’s articulate, appeals to both sides of the electorate, and would likely do well in the swing states during the general election.

Deal Breaker: “Too Much Like Romney.” Many Republican critics worry that Rubio is trying too hard, that he wants to be president so badly that he’ll say anything to try to get voters. They say that he changes a lot from speech to speech and debate to debate—depending on the current audience and what he thinks they want to hear. They see him as too much of a politician.

Kasich

Supporters like that he’s balanced the U.S. national budget, and also balanced the Ohio budget as governor. They like that he has both government and business leadership experience, and that he consistently avoids calling names and engaging in fights like Trump, Cruz, and Rubio.

Deal Breaker: “Common Core.” He’s shown enough support for Common Core standards and other government-run programs that many conservatives don’t want to vote for him. They also worry that his many years in politics make him too much a part of the establishment, generally progressive and supportive of government.

Carson

Supporters love that he’s consistently focused on his message, and has been throughout his entire election. They like that he is classy and doesn’t consistently fight and bicker with other candidates. They really like that he is very strong on the Constitution and conservative principles.

Deal Breaker: “Putin!” A number of Republican critics worry that he won’t stand strongly against Putin, China, ISIS, and other major world challengers. They are concerned that he isn’t a proven leader against enemies or in rallying huge groups of voters for things like major economic change. “Great man; not sure what kind of leader he’d be.”

Question:

• What are your thoughts?

• Which of the candidates would be the best president, and why?

I look forward to your comments below.

Category : Blog &Citizenship &Current Events &Politics

America All Alone! by Oliver DeMille

February 19th, 2016 // 4:30 pm @ Oliver DeMille

A Big Picture Look at the World in Twenty Years

The Shift

For more than a century America has enjoyed the luxury of strong allies in Europe. When problems came, as they always do, many European and North American nations relied on each other for strength, leadership, even rescue.

This was certainly the case in World Wars I and II and the Cold War from the 1960s thru the 1990s. Nobody alive today remembers a time when America was alone in the world.

Yet such a world is rapidly emerging. The main reason for this dangerous development is the massive and truly tragic decline of Europe. Most people don’t realize this is occurring, or just how significant it is.

A few pundits warn that this may be Europe’s last century as a great power—as leadership shifts from the Atlantic powers (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the United States, Canada, etc.) to the Pacific Rim nations (China, Russia, India, North America). This shift is inherently problematic—the U.S. and Canada are trading European allies (nearly always friendly) for more belligerent and totalitarian foes in Moscow and Beijing.

Huge difference. And this will undoubtedly bring even greater difficulties whenever problems arise and help is needed. Russia and China each see themself as the top emerging superpower. India is a close third.

In times of trouble, where will America turn for support?

The truth is even worse than the pundits let on, however. The idea that this is Europe’s last great power century is overly optimistic. If current trends continue, no nation in Western Europe is likely to act as a major power after 2030. Certainly not beyond 2050, and possibly not even after 2020.

Downward Spiral

This will catalyze a tectonic shift in global affairs, and the ramifications of the change are already beginning.

But what exactly is happening in Europe to bring about such rapid decline? The answer is a warning to Americans, if we will heed it.

1) Terrorism

Terrorism has taken root in Europe. European nations are quickly becoming like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or other Near Eastern and North African states in terms of an underground but steady terrorist presence. This will only deepen and grow, unless something drastic occurs.

2) Refugees

The influx of refugees last year, this year, and likely for the next few years ahead will only exacerbate the incidence and proximity of terrorism. Certainly not all, or even most, of the refugees are terrorists. But a few are. That’s a major problem. The whole point of terrorism is that a very few can drastically impact the many.

3) Population Decline

Birthrates are rapidly changing the European electorate. Birthrates for traditional Europeans are down—in some cases negative—while birthrates for immigrants living in Europe are high. Democratic institutions are quickly changing as a result.

4) Debt

Debt is skyrocketing in the poor European nations, roughly two-thirds of the continent. The pattern of Greece is spreading.

5) Societal Decline

A general lack of innovation has settled over the continent. This is reinforced by a widespread and growing belief in high levels of government regulation in nearly every sector of society. Financial capital is moving elsewhere, increasing unemployment and further convincing voters to elect big-regulation candidates.

6) Leadership Gap

As a result of the fifth problem above, Europe is experiencing an era of lackluster leadership. Private sector leaders of all types are increasingly powerless in a big-government environment, and those in government were elected to regulate rather than lead. The bureaucracies are swelling (along with the costs), but strategic national thinking has become rare. This further fuels debt problems.

All of this was avoidable at one point, but we have long since passed the likelihood of any kind of serious turnaround. It now appears to be a downward spiral.

A New Path

Again, the United States and Canada aren’t far behind Europe in this pattern. Perhaps a decade, if the U.S. stays on its current path. Two decades at the most. But we still have time to reverse course.

Will we? The answer is very much in doubt.

In any case, Russia and China are attempting a major rise just as Europe is losing much of its vitality and strength. This puts North America in a tight spot.

If the U.S. needs strong, committed allies ten or twenty years from now, we may be out of luck.

Perhaps it is time for an entirely new strategic approach toward Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and the rest of Latin America. This may be source of future allies. It is certainly time—past time—for a serious return to the principles of freedom and free enterprise, along with a renewed adherence to the U.S. Constitution, in the United States.

At this point, the U.S. is charting a European-style course to join Britain, France, Germany, and Italy in their decline. President Obama has been an open proponent of a more Europeanized governance.

It goes without saying that this is a bad choice. Likewise, following the Chinese or Russian strategy is also the wrong approach.

It is time for America to chart its own direction, one based on a major refocus on freedom, free enterprise, and Constitutional values, as mentioned. Any other direction—any other direction —is a sure path to our decline.

Interested in Oliver’s works on freedom, forms and how to mend society?

Check these out:

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Politics

Why Democrats and Republicans Can’t Cooperate by Oliver DeMille

February 19th, 2016 // 4:02 pm @ Oliver DeMille

The Job

When Republicans are thinking about who to elect as president, the majority of them are looking for the best commander in chief. In contrast, Democrats are seeking the best Chief Executive. Not every rank and file party members realizes this difference, of course, but it is very much part of our culture.

Make no mistake: These are very different jobs. The commander in chief has the fundamental purpose of keeping America and Americans safe. The Chief Executive analyzes, oversees, and improves the nation in many ways, trying to make things as good as possible for everyone.

In fact, these divergent views clarify the biggest differences between the two parties:

Republicans typically want a “president” who keeps the nation strong militarily and economically.
Democrats generally seek a “President” who looks around the nation and its many states and communities, assesses potential needs in a number of areas, and sets out to deliver an ongoing list of improvements.

The Powers

It is interesting just how the Constitution describes the role of president. Article II, dedicated to the presidency, contains four sections. Section 1 deals with elections, who is eligible to be president, the president’s salary, and the oath of office. Section 4 addresses impeachment.

The real meat of the presidency, including executive powers, are found solely in Sections 2 and 3, and take up only four paragraphs. The Constitution gives the president only 12 powers, each clearly spelled out:

He is the commander in chief of the military.
He may require written opinions from anyone serving as head of a department in the executive branch.
He can grant reprieves and pardons.
He can make treaties, as long as two-thirds of the Senate agrees.
He can appoint ambassadors, justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal officials, as long as two-thirds of the Senate agrees.
He can fill vacancies in federal offices during recesses of the Senate.
He shall from time to time give a report and recommendations to the Congress.
He may, in a time of extraordinary circumstances, convene Congress and/or adjourn it (this was defined by the framers mainly as a time when a declaration of war was needed).
He can meet with foreign diplomats.
He shall take care that all the laws are faithfully executed.
He shall commission all the officers of the United States.

One more power, a check on the legislative branch, is given to the president in Article I, Section 7:

He can veto a proposed law.

All of these except number 12 are roles of commander in chief. That’s why 12 appears in Article I, because it is the only legislative power the president has: a veto. That’s it.

The Final Say

None of the other 11 powers are that of a chief executive, much less a “Chief Executive.” Literally—none. Only power 7 could even be construed as a chief executive power, and it is very weak: it only consists of reporting to Congress and recommending ideas. Nothing else. Note that both reporting and recommending ideas are what inferiors do to superiors, not what a Chief Executive does.

The Constitution gives the president no power to look around the nation, see what is needed, and seek to implement it—except, again, power 7, in which he can use his State of the Union address to recommend his ideas to Congress. Still, this is the power to recommend. Period. Nothing more. Congress then gets to decide whether to apply or ignore his recommendations.

Otherwise, the president isn’t given any Constitutional power to act in a chief executive role. The closest the Constitution comes to this is power 10, which is to take care that the laws of the nation are faithfully executed. But even in this, the president is simply carrying out the law—he doesn’t get to determine what it should be.

Yes, as mentioned, he can veto a proposed law that he doesn’t like. But Congress has the final say: If Congress overrides the veto, according to the Constitution, the president must implement the law—along with all the ones he does like. This is the clear the meaning of power 10.

Again, the idea of the U.S. President as the “chief executive,” or the “CEO of the nation,” as some recent presidents have suggested, is simply not part of the Constitution. The phrase used in the Constitution itself is “commander in chief,” and his job is to keep America safe, not to go around finding things that need improving and try to make them happen.

The Problem

This is a major divide between the two dominant American political parties. Most Republicans aren’t about to agree that the president has any right, power, or authority to act as a Chief Executive or National CEO, overseeing the Congress, the Courts, or private citizens. They simply do not believe the Constitution allows it. And, in this, they are absolutely correct.

Republicans are at times divided about the role of the president, some wanting to give the Oval Office more power and others wanting to keep such powers strictly limited to the Constitution. But this debate nearly always centers around national security, or in a few cases, the economy and the way major economic policies impact national security.

The Democratic Party, in contrast, generally insists that the evolution of American government has moved the nation beyond such Constitutional considerations—that the American people now want a President who acts as both Commander in Chief and also Chief Executive. Note that such a role would allow the President to issue Executive Orders at will—not just to those who work for him in the executive branch of the federal government, but to anyone. Or everyone. This includes Judges, Justices, Governors, Senators, private citizens—or anyone else.

This is entirely unconstitutional. In fact, it’s not even close to the Constitution.

In all this, the two parties are at an impasse. And most of the regular people—who seldom focus on the specifics of the Constitution outlined here—tend to lean toward one camp or the other. Some think the presidency should be limited, checked and balanced by Congress, the courts, and especially the words of the Constitution; and others feel that if we’re going to have a president, he should have the power to see what the nation needs and just issue commands and policies to make it happen.

These two views are entirely incompatible with each other. They can’t cooperate. They can’t intertwine. They are opposites. Either we elect a president to be the commander in chief, limited to the 12 powers outlined by the Constitution, or we elect a Chief Executive Officer who we allow to use powers beyond the Constitution.

The Promises

Many Americans see the failure of parties to cooperate as a problem, a weakness in Washington and its politicians. But the challenge goes much deeper than this. It is structural. To repeat: The framers gave us a Constitution with a president who is commander in chief, has only 12 specific powers, and is limited by law from doing anything else. They did this on purpose—because after living under a King, they didn’t want an executive with a lot of power.

In fact, they didn’t want an executive with anything except the bare minimum of power needed to keep the nation safe. They wrote about this extensively in the Federalist Papers, and they meant it. (Specifically, see Federalist Papers 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 58, 67, 69).

The Anti-Federalists almost blocked the ratification of the Constitution on this one issue: they were afraid the president would eventually gain too much power. They defined “too much power” as having any power beyond the 12 presidential powers written in Article II, Sections 2-3 and Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

The Federalists promised that this would never happen. In fact, in Federalist Paper 69 the founders argued that the president would have less power over the nation than a governor would have over a state like New York, except in a time of war, and only if a war was officially declared by Congress. At the end of such a war, the president’s power would once again be less than a state governor in his state.

This is what the founders promised, and without this promise the Constitution would not have been ratified. But why did they promise this? Because it is precisely what the Constitution itself says. We just need to follow it.

The Parties Within The Parties

So, yes, the parties have a fundamental disagreement. And there’s really no getting past it. Because of this underlying reality—even when it isn’t brought up—the parties will always be strongly opposed. They will always be passionately, even angrily, against each other. They will always hotly contest the other, and do so at times in uncivil and extreme language and tones.

This escalates even more when anyone on the Republican side of the aisle agrees with the view that the president should have broader, more extensive powers than the 12 specifically outlined the Constitution. When this happens—and it happens frequently nowadays—the anger, frustration, division and arguments only intensify.

Indeed, these two factions of the Republican camp are often nastier toward each other than the two major parties. Yet this is the crux of our democratic republic: To follow the Constitution, as it is written (including amendments), or to let presidents, judges, and political parties redefine and ignore it as they see fit.

The reality is that the president only has 12 constitutional powers as listed in the Constitution, and our nation will only thrive when the Oval Office has no additional powers beyond these 12.

As for politics, most Americans want Republicans and Democrats to cooperate. If this means working together to make sure all government officials and entities follow the Constitution, as it is written, it’s a wonderful idea.

But if cooperation between the two parties means what it usually does in today’s media—giving in to the side that seeks to ignore the Constitution and expand government even further beyond its constitutional limits, such cooperation is one of the worst political ideas imaginable.

“Cooperation” is too often simply a mainstream media buzzword for letting the political professionals and bureaucrats run things (all the while expanding the size and scope of government), while the regular people quietly submit to the rule of their “superiors.” This is not what we want, regardless of political party.

Interested in Oliver’s works on freedom, forms and how to mend society? Check these out:

Category : Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Politics

« First « 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »Last »