Sunday, September 23, 2012

The Three–Legged Stool



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
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.