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