TOO MUCH POWER, TOO LITTLE CONSTITUTION

Whether you agree with or disagree with the broadening power the federal government is assuming almost daily, you must think to the future. The nuclear option the Senate now employs works well when it is used for something with which you agree. It will, however, work against your ideals just as quickly.

You might favor the ballsy overreaching executive orders of this president, but what happens when the next president, with whom you disagree, uses the same usurped authority? What prohibits the next president from unfairly endowing himself or herself with greater jurisdiction and seizing more of your rights, privileges and property by executive order?

Future Attorneys General might also selectively enforce laws duly voted on and passed by congress. They could just as likely forgive favored associations, politicians or political party injustices resulting in precedent for ongoing defaulting or disregarding the law.

What happens when the president, with his or her party controlling both houses of Congress, nominates agenda bound, partisan, politically driven “wing” radicals to the Supreme Court…for life? Might they garner favor of the president with servant like submission of their rulings?  Perhaps they, too, might rule unchecked and defiantly out of contempt when there is a change in the dominant party or chief executive?

The founders created a government with three co-equal branches to assure there would be slow and deliberative debate before implementing new laws, regulations, taxes, etc.  They foresaw local and regional justices having the opportunity to settle matters before a panel of nine ruled with an irrevocable decision.

Two legislative branches exist for the sole purpose of protracted and reasoned debate when consensus cannot be reached immediately. Bills are meant to be passed back and forth between the two houses, massaged and amended as necessary until agreement is reached. They are then forwarded to the president for final signature. The process is intentionally slow to avoid irreconcilable mistakes (aka unintended consequences).

In their proposal, the chief executive has the power of line item veto to correct any misgivings of bills reaching him or her for signature. Recommending amendments to bills before affixing his or her signature making them law is also an option accorded to the chief executive. They did not want the executive or legislative or the judicial branch to have unlimited, excessive or undue influence over the others or the citizenry.

The average lifespan of democracies, historically, is about 200 years. Given that our Constitution was ratified in 1788, our republic now covers 226 years. As a nation, we are in the throes of death. Radical adjustments must be made soon to save what we have or we have to prepare to accept the consequences of inaction.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

One Response to “TOO MUCH POWER, TOO LITTLE CONSTITUTION”

  1. jkiraly Says:

    Very good, Bob, I’ve been saying almost the same think for several years now, that the Republic is almost lost, if it isn’t already. Our Republic and America will be relegated to the dust bin of history and remembered by future generations as an enlighten city on a hill. We might also be remembered by future generations as Atlantis is remembered today. It would be a shame if we Patriots let that happen.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: