I've often heard some political activists talk about candidates for the Supreme Court or even an occasional member of the current court. They'd say: "We need someone who won't legislate from the bench!" At first I wondered what they were talking about. "Why would a supreme court justice be legislating" and "what is a bench?" Though I'm just a Basicguy, it still didn't take me long to figure out what they were trying to say. The bench is that stand that the justices sit on when they hear and respond to cases brought before them. And the legislating thing? Well, that's how laws are made, usually by the legislature, and should not be by a supreme court with a political agenda.
Well, all this got me thinking the other day. I was reading some of the transcript from the most recent debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Each candidate was warned that they would be pressed by constitutional matters, but it didn't take long to leave the Constitution and see the bickering back and forth over the candidates favorite issues. As I read, I began to wonder how many of the things they were promising to do for America actually related to the duties of a president as dictated by the Constitution. Well, not much.
It seems that most of the things presidential candidates talk about (and that goes for both parties) fall within the duties of the legislative branch, not the executive. Well, if that's the case, would it be fair to say: "We need someone who won't legislate from the throne?" Now, I voted for President Bush, but looking at his politics from this perspective, I wondered how many of the initiatives he instigated really didn't belong to the executive office of government? Here are some to think about: The Iraq war; Prescription drug benefits; NAFTA; CAFTA; No child Left Behind; etc., etc., etc.
Well, I imagine this line of discussion could spark some debate. So be it. There's nothing wrong with a healthy constitutional conversation. All I'd ask first is that you pull out your old pamphlet of the Constitution and review articles I and II of the Constitution. Article I deals with the Legislative Branch and Article II deals with the Executive. Put the current president and the candidates on trial.
Basically speaking, whenever you hear any politician put forth some fascinating plan for the country, ask yourself if the Constitution really allows them to do that. If it does, then maybe that person is a good choice. However, if it doesn't, it ought to worry us that such important people do not know the very Constitution they promise to protect and uphold on a stack of bibles. If we're not more vigilant on these constitutional issues, we may find that "legislating from the throne" is far worse than legislating from the bench. Keep your constitutional eyes open America.
2 comments:
Good advice, but isn't part of the President's job to propose legislation? I think that's what they're talking about when they propose measures during their campaigns.
What bothers me, is that the executive has such power to almost force Congress and the Senate to toe the line at times. Even Pres. Bush, as unpopular as he is, still has a LOT of clout and can still push through much of his agenda. I worry what will happen if B. Hussein Obama, or Billerie Clintonista ever get into power.
Hi Paul,
My reading of the Constitution makes me wonder if the executive branch should be proposing legislation. I think that's why we call it the legislature. I don't have a problem with a candidate for president attempting to help articulate his parties vision for the country... but to then tell us that he or she will legislate this or that and save us. It just doesn't feel right. Anyway, I have the same concerns you have about the dems.
Post a Comment