PERTURBED PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES PART I

In light of recently celebrating George Washington’s birthday yesterday, I felt eager and anxious to reconsider why it has been so natural for me to criticize my president while simultaneously expecting he ought to service me with better schools, farmers, bankers, and jobs? From where did this demanding and borderline-needy ethos develop within our nation? And why do I care so much when the rest of the world criticizes the US President for not accomplishing enough?

In case you’re not already familiar with the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, they are a series of articles written for early American newspapers to publish in order to inform the American public of the law and theory behind the Constitution, in an effort to guarantee public support and ensure its ratification. According to Federalist Paper number 69, the job of the president seemed pretty clear and comparatively simple. Hamilton elaborates on four main functions (and no others). He discusses the president’s power to return any bills passed by Congress, to assume position of Commander-in-Chief over the Army and Navy, to receive and send foreign ambassadors, and to sign treaties (upon Congressional approval). (SOURCE)

Tracking the record of how these powers expanded across all the differing eras and presidencies in our country’s history would take more of a thesis format rather than a humble little “common-sensical” style blog post. That’s why I’d like to examine briefly two case scenarios as two definitive turning points in pushing our nation toward the current track we walk of executive power inflation: the Jackson era and the FDR era. Alas, it was so tempting, and so easy for me to drool over the expansion of the presidency that took place under George W. Bush’s term, but I have resisted the temptation to attack his administration specifically in this post, because I would argue that presidents like Bush and Obama are merely falling into a pattern that was jump-started by larger characters in our country’s history, like the two case-examples to follow…

Jackson remains remembered as one of the great presidents because he transformed the understanding of the presidency into the only office that serves as the direct representative of the American people (in its entirety). Since the chief executive is the only office voted onby everybody, Jackson interpreted his role as one that needs to be, first and foremost, a voice for the majority. Also a firm believer in democracy, Jackson stated, “The first principle of our government is that the majority ought to govern”. As the only representative of the majority in one office, Jackson went far beyond the reach of his predecessors in interpreting his constitutional role as president, since the “majority” was his only real check in power (and not the other two branches of government, so much). He was the first president to introduce the “spoils system” in Washington, where federal bureaucrats are fired because of their political disagreements with the president. He also took his veto power to another level. Before his presidency, nine bills had been vetoed. He alone vetoed twelve. He also discovered and utilized the “pocket veto”, where a bill is vetoed right before recess, thereby removing any chance of the veto to be overturned. (SOURCE See pages 105, 114, 126)

Jackson helped to bring the presidency into a more influential position, and utilized his influence in the name of supporting the equality of the middle class (or average citizen). The danger of such dependency on the majority ensues when the majority is wrong. Aside from Jackson nearly single-handedly conquering Florida and setting the stage for the annexation of Texas, his treatment of the Cherokee Indians remained uncontested by his check (the majority), even in light of the Supreme Court decision he blatantly ignored. In 1832, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws on Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson is often quoted as responding with, “(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” Jackson went on to pressure Cherokee leaders to sign a removal treaty thereby forcibly removing Cherokee Indians from their lands, to walk the “Trail of Tears”, recorded as having caused the death of over 4,000 Cherokee Indians (SOURCE).

Perhaps this is an extreme example of the frighteningly powerful potential for a presidential figure with widespread popular appeal. The American populous can enable great expansion of the Executive when the Executive believes in its inherent entitlement to interpret the limits of its own position. But this is the very genius of the “checks and balances” system, defined by Rousseau, and adopted by the drafters of our Constitution. The president does not exist to represent the majority, Congress does. The president does not exist to interpret the Constitutional limits of its ability to act in the name of the people, the Supreme Court does. Why then, should we be comforted when President Obama tells us, ““My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington.”?? (SOURCE) Thanks Obama, but no thanks. I would rather my Congressperson feed me that line, and my president care more deeply about focusing on the tasks designed to occupy the presidency. Not the tasks currently delegated to a host of persons, working for a host of organizations, organized under a host of bureaucracies, placed under the heads of a host of presidential advisors, in order to feed the massive machine of our contemporary executive branch.

It seems blatantly apparent, from the example of Jackson’s legacy, that “justice” can be fluidly interpreted when too much power of interpretation is given to the office of one man. But what about under desperate conditions, when the people truly want the President to act in the name of their survival? Is there ever a case where deviation from the Constitution ought to be considered in the name of the protection of the people? We’ll consider these questions, and the case study of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in next week’s post. Until then, have a happy President’s Day week!

-E.C.Soria

INTERLUDE: BANKS BANKING OFF OF BAD BUSINESS

E.C.Soria, our most respected writer, is undergoing a hefty project, continuing her previous post about the President's role in comparison to the U.S. citizen's role in our nation. She is still in the process of digesting her thoughts and was fearful of rushing the process. I commended her efforts and encouraged her to continue on perfecting what she's trying to convey. I think it's going to be one of her finest pieces on this blog and I look forward to supporting it with my Illustrations. SO! My dear readers, please forgive our lack of a post today and think of this as a brief interlude. Next week will certainly shine with E.C.'s usual eloquence, but for now let's sit back and listen to a favorite politician and Senator of ours, Dr.Ron Paul. As controversial as he has been, I think he makes valid points and in this clip in particular he and Judge Napolitano make great observations on what's been going on between our Government and the Banks they/we are bailing out. Much thanks to M.G.Gonzales for directing us to this clip. Definitely take a listen and we'll be sure to see you next week!

-N.S.Soria

STATE OF THE UNION DECREE

Thank you, Mr. President…

As spurred on by the State of the Union Address last week, I’ve been recently reflecting on the state of the American Presidency. Obama’s Address was definitely a great speech (as most expected it to be), but most commentary after the Address focuses critiques on whether or not the speech accomplished what Obama needed to accomplish in order to strengthen his administration. It seems nominally questioned, though, whether or not we are simply expecting way too much from one speech, and more importantly, from one man.

The Address last week followed a cliché pattern of addressing accomplishments, admitting to trials faced and trials to come, and then proclaim a four-tiered paradigm for striving toward a strong USA…

The first layer of Obama’s speech, in terms of the direction of immediate government action, was in regards to financial reform. One can easily refer to the below post in order to gauge our sentiments on the only type of financial reform that seems to have taken place within this administration. Namely, pumping federal dollars into banks, only to turn around and tax them, in the name of redistributing such “gains” to smaller banks funding smaller businesses. This appears not only counter-productive, but wasteful.

The next layer of Obama’s speech, called for an investment in “greener” innovation. While the thought of more “green” industry in America sounds like a two-fold win, a more environmentally friendly America with more domestic “industrial” jobs. We ought also to be careful that money invested is going towards private industry, which will be more effective in providing gains in green technology while securing more jobs for the future, rather than investing more money in more government bureaucracies (i.e. $10 billion this year on the mere operation of the federal EPA), which hands greater responsibility to the federal government while also teaching us to depend on government expansion in order to create more jobs. This would not count as a win. (SOURCE)

The third step towards success was an allusion toward Obama’s newest National Export Initiative. I would fervently disagree that more agricultural exports guarantees more American jobs and that more agricultural subsidies equals more successful farmers. But even with these ideological differences aside, the logical conclusion from past patterns of government agricultural subsidies is that they are a waste. Over $95 billion was spent between 2001 and 2006 on agricultural subsidies, while 1.3 billion of those dollars went to landowners that didn’t plant a single crop (SOURCE). Furthermore, according to the current National Export Initiative, as listed under the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Department of the US Department of Agriculture, the $54 million proposed for this Initiative will serve towards increasing salaries within the FAS by $34.5 million. Therefore, the leftover $19.5 million probably cannot be expected to ramp our agricultural prowess in the world by much. (SOURCE)

Obama’s final step in guaranteeing our comeback as a strong economically stable nation was laid out in the form of educational reform. Whereas, the need for an improved educational system is acknowledged across the board, the need to place greater responsibility in the hands of the federal government ought to be questioned. An example of Obama’s progress in educational reform includes one of his latest initiatives, referred to as “Race to the Top”. States have the opportunity to apply for grants for their schools that have been making progress in meeting national standards and for state-funded programs in meeting lower-scoring school’s needs. While more money for states sounds like a step in the right direction, this initiative will only grant money to 11 of the 50 states. (SOURCE). How is this a constitutionally sounds way to spend federal money (which ought to belong in the hands of the Union as a whole)?

If you’ve managed to even force your way this far through my droning complaints regarding Obama’s State of the Union Address, you might find yourself begging the same question I’m internally struggling with right now. How did I manage to write an entire post resembling the very whining and groaning of the thousands of journalistic commentators that I was calling into question at the beginning of my post? Maybe the greater question is how have we, collectively as a nation, become accustomed to looking to the face, speeches, and ambitions of one man, to give us our bankers, jobs, and schools? The process of critiquing this presidential figure has become much too easy for anyone (even myself), because we’ve turned his position into a presidential king of sorts, looked toward for providing us with everything and anything we can think of asking of him. Perhaps the investigation of how we’ve found our nation in this collectively needy and demanding position is worth considering. Perhaps a conversation to be continued for next week’s post…

-E.C.Soria