Okay, this is a rant. If that offends you, delete this email or skip this blog article. It is unfortunately, election season and I have some tags left. <<< === Good Hunting!
America Should NEVER have a King!
The current mudslinging escapades of our presidential candidates makes for interesting headlines, but the reality is BOTH parties are missing the really important issue with regard to who is President of the United States. Trump or Harris, one thing is clear. Many Americans worry the US President has the power to change their day to day lives. They expect the President to manage the economy (without an understanding of how this can happen), they expect the President to end foreign wars in which the USA is not a combatant, and worse of all, they expect the US President to unilaterally make law and policy decisions. Presidents are not Kings. Our Constitution was written to distribute power across the three branches of government, allowing for checks and balances. The concentration of power in the hands of the President, whether Trump or Harris, is the biggest threat to democracy, not our petty party politics.
Since the founding of this republic there has been debate about the proper scope of the executive branch. The first independent state governments emphasized weak executives, and the Articles of Confederation prescribed NO EXECUTIVE whatsoever (only the President of Congress). This comes from a fear of repeating the tyranny of George III. The rigors of self rule brought the slowness of legislative decision making to the forefront and by the 1780s it was clear that some form of executive government was needed but the question of how much power should be invested in that office still loomed large. The Constitution was basically a compromise between the extremes of no executives and a totalitarian monarchy. It called for an executive that would have vast powers in foreign affairs, great limits in both managing domestic policy and initiating war, and above all a dependence on both the Congress and the sovereign states to enact ANY laws.
Almost from the inception, Presidents have sought more and more power. George Washington ignored Pennsylvania law, claiming Presidential privilege. He also ignored the Jay Treaty (ratified by Congress) in asserting American neutrality in the war between England and France. Thomas Jefferson expanded the United States and appropriated funds to do so (both explicit powers of Congress not the Executive) when he purchased Louisiana. Andrew Jackson unilaterally defunded and dissolved the 2nd Bank of the United States. James Polk went to war with Mexico (again the power to wage war resides with the Congress not the President). And the list goes on. Presidents from Washington to Biden have assumed power that they should not have under the US Constitution.
This all came to a head in 1973, when in the wake of election interference by Richard Nixon (the Watergate break-ins), Congress reasserted its authority and passed the War Powers Act of 1973 (which they passed by overriding Nixon’s veto), tried to limit FBI and CIA activities through the Church Committee investigations of the mid 1970s, and passed the Ethics in Government Act to create Special Prosecutors to investigate accusations of illegal activities in the executive branch. Whether we are talking about Abraham Lincoln managing Reconstruction through patronage relationships; FDR creating extra-governmental agencies to aid in the recovery form the Great Depression; Eisenhower expanding the power of the President to respond to nuclear threats; Reagan unilaterally altering the tax code; wars with Algeria(Jefferson), Cuba (Kennedy), Vietnam (Johnson), Grenada (Reagan), Iraq (Bush), and Afghanistan (Bush); or even the attempted coup d’etat and attempted assassination of the Vice President (Trump); one thing is clear – US Presidential power is out of control and needs to be regulated.
How did we get here when the written Constitution gives none of these powers to the President? The very purpose of writing down the organizing principles of the government was to prevent slow alterations to the way politics is conducted and on paper none of these powers reside with the Executive. The only amendments to the Constitution since the 1700s have actually limited the power of the chief executive, formally limiting him to two terms, and from holding office should they be involved in an insurrection against the union. The powers we see invested in Joe Bident are vastly superior to even the power invested in KING George III, and yet we just claim we are a democracy rather than an oligarchy.
An interesting quirk of our constitutional system is how it can be altered without amendment. If a leader — usually the president — takes power for himself that is not strictly within the boundaries established by the Constitution, and the people do not complain loudly and long enough, then the precedent law takes hold and the law is effectively amended, even though no formal amendment has been ratified. In short, they get to act like Kings because we are too lazy to stand up and say no. We see this at its extreme in the latest Supreme Court ruling that a President cannot be prosecuted for official acts – a proviso that the founding fathers would have objected to STRONGLY.
This expansion of presidential power has disrupted the traditional relationship between the executive and legislative branches. The Framers were careful to separate the power to declare war and execute a war between the Congress and the president, but today the president has power to do both, and Congress merely ratifies the decision after the fact. Similarly, the power to make domestic policy and execute it was intentionally divided between the two branches, but today Congress regularly issues directives so broad that the executive is tasked with formulating and executing policy. Additionally, presidents often engage in extra-legislative policymaking through the use of executive orders even though their authority does not trace back to the Constitution. There is broad use of “executive privilege,” which is not to be found in the Constitution either but is now commonly cited for purely political purposes. Another extra-constitutional innovation, known as “signing statements,” have effectively granted the president a line-item veto, something the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, presidents use signing statements as legal cover not to implement portions of laws that they find unacceptable.
This should trouble those who cherish our constitution. We have slowly given up a republic in which the Congress would take the lead in public policy and that checks and balances governed over ambitious power-hungry presidents. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” He responded, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” It’s time we take some action to keep it. So, I am issuing a challenge to ALL VOTERS. Whether you vote for Harris or Trump, PLEASE consider the rest of the government. We need STRONG and BOLD legislators who work to restore the Constitutional republic we fought so hard to create. The power of the President needs to be restricted and reinvested in the Congress. No one person, regardless of their virtue, is capable of welding this much power without being corrupted. American must never be ruled by a King!
“Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely!” — Lord Acton, 1857
Remember, Elections only come periodically. We will get past this one and EVENTUALLY, back to normal. In the meantime, relax, have a beer, and remember that true patriots VOTE their conscience not what they are told to vote!
Want to have the
Regimental Brewmeister
at your site or event?
You can hire me.
https://colonialbrewer.com/yes-you-can-hire-me-for-your-event-or-site/
Michael Carver -- Historical Interpreter/Reenactor 