The image I am using to head up this blog posting comes from an article published in The New Yorker. The article, by Antonia Hitchens, is titled, "Follow The Leader." That's the title used in the hard copy edition of the magazine. Online, Hitchens' article has this title: "How Trump Worship Took Hold In Washington." You are invited to click that link to the title, to read the article in its entirety, but be advised of a possible paywall problem if you do.
In her article, Hitchens calls out a "culture of obedience," which she says "reigns" in Trump's Washington. I think that Hitchens is using this word, "reigns," advisedly. Trump definitely acts as though his election to the presidency conferred upon him some near-royal authority. Of course, the United States Constitution has a different view of what a president is authorized and directed to do. The way the Constitution puts it (in Article II), the president is directed to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed."
In other words, our Constitution does not contemplate that "the laws" that the president is charged with "executing" are "laws" that the president has established on his own. The Constitution makes quite clear that the laws governing us are to be enacted by the "Legislative Branch," namely Congress. As someone has recently put it, the president's authority (Article II) lies in between the primary authority of Congress, outlined in Article I, and the review powers that are the prerogative of the Judicial Branch, as outlined in Article III.
Again, this is not the way our current president sees it, and his use of so-called "Executive Orders" reveals his mistaken understanding of his presidential authority. Many, if not most, of the Executive Orders issued by our current president purport to take what amounts to "legislative" action directly. As you have undoubtedly noticed, the courts have, rather consistently, corrected the president's overreach by holding such orders "unconstitutional."
Some appear to believe that the courts should recognize a so-called "Unitary Executive Theory," which would provide a president with greater control over the Executive Branch. Click that link to read up on that theory, but notice that there is no claim that the president is supposed to decide what the laws are. The "Unitary Executive Theory" only says that the president should be given "plenary" authority over how the Executive Branch should undertake to execute the laws.
Is the "Unitary Executive Theory" the right way to describe the duties of our president? There are some good arguments on each side, but what our current president is doing is, emphatically, not validated by even the most expansive understanding of what that "Unitary Executive Theory" would allow a president to do.
In fact, it seems to me that our current president (certainly no great student of our laws or our Constitution) is actually trying to run our nation as if it were a corporation. Corporate governance is often delegated to the corporation's "Chief Executive Officer," the CEO, who is put into place by the Board of Directors (analogous to the voters), and the CEO can be removed only by them. Unless and until the CEO is so removed from her or his office, the CEO hires and fires, and runs the place the way the CEO sees fit, including deciding what the corporation is going to do.
What's wrong with our government, today? Well, the MAIN problem isn't, actually, our current president. Our MAIN problem is that the Congress isn't legislating, and telling the president what to do; the Congress is letting the president tell the Congress what to do, and if the Congress does nothing (the base case), the president just does what the president thinks is most appropriate.
And what about that Congress?
Well, WE, the people, are supposed to tell the Congress what to do, and we're not being very effective in doing that. It's hard, of course, because it's money running the Congress, not the citizens, but just to be clear, as hard as it is, WE need to get control over our representatives in Congress, and then get them actually to represent us. If we think our "Party" is going to do that for us, whichever "Party" that might be, we need to think again. Remember what I just said (and I bet you agree, too): "It's money running the Congress." How does that happen? Well, it's money running those political parties.
Does money always have the final say? Actually, NO! But a lot more people have to put in time, focused directly on making their Congressional representatives vote the way the majority want them to - and removing those "representatives" if they aren't property "representing" the voters who have the ability either to keep them in office, or to throw them out.
This commentary, if you agree, ought to spark a "look in the mirror" moment. That's Step #1. After that, a lot more steps need to be taken, meaning that we each need to amp up our own political engagement, starting at the local level and then working right on up!
Image Credit:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!