The Great Republic

During every presidential election it’s inevitable to hear the electorate ask repeatedly, ‘What will the president do about the economy? What will the president do about the environment? What will the president do about foreign policy?’

Sadly, the proper answer is, ‘Not much'.

The economy, including fiscal policy, taxation, corporate investment, consumer trends, the price of food and gasoline, involves global forces which are largely beyond the control of the president.

The same applies to issues affecting the environment. The president cannot dictate what cars we drive or how we choose to warm our homes. Actually, he can’t even proclaim where we can dig for oil or cut down trees.

The same limits on executive power do not apply quite as stringently to the president’s foreign policy decisions. After all, the Constitution of the United States specifies that the conduct of foreign affairs is the one area in which the executive reserves a great deal of discretionary power.

But even in this arena of endeavor the president must take care to act in concert with the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. That is, through Congress.

After all, let us not forget that our nation is a republic. It is a nation of laws. And these laws do not proceed from the pen of the president. Nor does he reserve the power to interpret these laws. These functions are properly reserved by Congress and the Supreme Court. The executive can only act in accordance with these laws and the interpretation of their Constitutional propriety.

Anything contrary to this rightfully deserves to be called a tyranny.

So, why do I express a preference for one presidential candidate over another knowing that the president actually has little power to effectively address the big issues?

Precisely because I believe the current president and his coterie have acted as far outside the expressed will of the people as they dare without risking a Constitutional crisis and impeachment. Initially he was able to do so largely on the basis of the fear and panic engendered by the bombing on September 11, 2001. But as that date recedes in the public consciousness he has only been able to pursue his policies of executive aggrandizement, corporate cronyism, and international alienation by judiciously jettisoning some of the more publicly unpalatable members of his inner circle and the lavish use of executive signing orders and the veto power.

In my judgment a vote for McCain will simply give assent to the continuation of an imperial executive. I don’t agree with this. I greatly respect the Constitutional principle of separation of powers. I have no use for a president who freely vetoes legislation drafted by our appointed lawmakers, and who then seeks to justify the legislative deadlock by pointing an accusing finger at a ‘do-nothing’ Congress. Such an action is simply an exercise of tyranny in disguise. And I bristle when the president seeks to accuse courts of ‘legislating from the bench’ when they arrive at legal conclusions with which he doesn’t agree.

I believe that Barack Obama will act with greater regard for the principles upon which our great republic is founded.

Also, I relish the idea of Hillary Clinton being appointed to the Supreme Court.

Sort of balance things out, you know.