The US government has often been compared to a three-legged stool with
each leg representing one of the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial.
Following that analogy, if any one leg becomes longer or shorter than
the other two, the stool becomes unstable and unless “righted” will ultimately topple over in the
direction of the shorter leg or opposite the direction of the longest leg.
Now consider what that could mean in terms of the US government.
If the executive branch usurps powers that belong exclusively to either
the legislative or the judicial branches, the result would be a dictatorial approach rather than a
defined executive one as detailed in the Constitution.
Similarly, if the judicial branch begins interpreting rather than
applying the constitution to a law passed by the legislature and signed by the president, the judiciary
has usurped the law making function that is solely the prerogative of the legislature.
Following our discussion further, if Congress should fail to enact the
laws necessary for the proper functioning of the government, the legislature would have
abdicated its responsibilities.
As an example, let’s assume that the House, where all money bills must originate, does not include in their proposed budget bill a particular department. The president would have the authority to veto the bill, returning it to the House with his comments and reasons for the veto. The House and Senate could then override the veto if they both can get the required 2/3rds vote. Thus, this power of Congress can serve as a check and balance against the expansion of the executive functions in areas
As an example, let’s assume that the House, where all money bills must originate, does not include in their proposed budget bill a particular department. The president would have the authority to veto the bill, returning it to the House with his comments and reasons for the veto. The House and Senate could then override the veto if they both can get the required 2/3rds vote. Thus, this power of Congress can serve as a check and balance against the expansion of the executive functions in areas
considered questionable under the constitution.
Some
examples of transgressions by each of the “legs” may prove helpful in
understanding the responsibilities of each in affecting the “checks and
balances” so ardently pursued by the Founders.
In
the case of the judiciary, “making law” is not within their assigned
power! When they cross the line as they
did in Kelo vs. New London (private property taken without due respect for the
Constitutional requirements), Congress had the power and duty to step in and
overrule the Supreme Court. They could point out that the court had
misinterpreted and intentionally ignored the restrictions which would govern in
such a case. Cf. Amendment V. However, they let it ride and did not
exert their powers.
Congress
can be brought up short every time a law is enacted that subsequently is
declared unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court acts as a restraining body by nullifying the unconstitutional law.
In
the case of the president, Executive Orders that don’t pertain to executing the
properly enacted laws of the country and Executive Orders that “appropriate”
more powers to the president than are authorized are examples of such
transgression. The delegation by
Congress of “war powers” and subsequent Executive Orders to send American
troops to do the UN’s bidding fly in the face of the approved powers of the
President. Congress cannot delegate
powers assigned exclusively to it. Thus,
Congress should move against the president when he acts improperly and without
sound Constitutional authority.
Unfortunately, the Constitution has been both ignored and distorted to
the point where it doesn’t appear that Congress is paying any attention and
simply lets the president do whatever he wants.
Hardly an example of sound government representing the people or the
law.
The
actions described are evidence that the oath of office, taken by the chief
executive officer, our elected representatives, senators and judicial
appointees upon their respective election or appointment, is either completely
forgotten or deliberately subverted. In
any case, it does not speak well for the intellectual honesty of those so
involved. The end result, no matter how
laudable, is never a justification of the means. Governments become tyrannical by
following such practices.
That’s
my view. What’s yours? Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©2012 Hillard W. Welch
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.