Calling in "The Boss"
A friend recently complained (justifiably so) that some members of Congress were appealing to foreign officials, asking for their "supervision" of U.S. elections.
The law does not permit such action to be taken on elections, which I pointed out to my friend: Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, supplemented by the 12th Amendment, in a straightforward, commonsense reading, tells us that it is not the business or jurisdiction of any national-level politician, official, judge, agency, or president to interfere with the election process, which by and large is defined and executed at state and local levels.
My friend's intended angry response to these congressional scofflaws was to appeal to the president, asking him to "rescind that invitation" because "he is the boss and he can do it."
This attitude (which is common among contemporary Americans) reflects how poorly many of us understand such concepts as rule-of-law and the very principles on which our (legal) system of government is based. Americans have become far too accustomed to clamoring for legislation, presidential decree (executive order), or judicial activism to solve problems (merely perceived or otherwise), when the Constitution already serves as a basis for resolving them.
We see the president, not as the executive administrator of the national government, as prescribed by law (i.e., the Constitution), but (thanks in part to Lincoln and his party) as "the boss." We want him -- and Congress -- to so arrange the laws and policies of the entire nation as to give us what we want, regardless of whether it is consitutionally lawful or at whose expense it must be procured.
I encouraged my friend to write the president, but not as "the boss." Instead, I said he should ask that the president censure those representatives who have gone beyond what the law permits, giving him (and them) an explanation of their error. A similar request could be made of the officers of the chambers of Congress to the same effect. And personal letters of censure could be sent to each of the representatives behind the invitation, advising them of their error.
By addressing our elected officials in the above manner, we put them on notice that we are familiar with the U.S. Constitution (which has not been repealed, contrary to popular opinion), and that we expect them to abide by it and the limitations it imposes.
And if it should happen to be the case that we are not familiar with the U.S. Constitution (or at least endeavoring to become so), then shame on us -- and we'd best get started!
The law does not permit such action to be taken on elections, which I pointed out to my friend: Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, supplemented by the 12th Amendment, in a straightforward, commonsense reading, tells us that it is not the business or jurisdiction of any national-level politician, official, judge, agency, or president to interfere with the election process, which by and large is defined and executed at state and local levels.
My friend's intended angry response to these congressional scofflaws was to appeal to the president, asking him to "rescind that invitation" because "he is the boss and he can do it."
This attitude (which is common among contemporary Americans) reflects how poorly many of us understand such concepts as rule-of-law and the very principles on which our (legal) system of government is based. Americans have become far too accustomed to clamoring for legislation, presidential decree (executive order), or judicial activism to solve problems (merely perceived or otherwise), when the Constitution already serves as a basis for resolving them.
We see the president, not as the executive administrator of the national government, as prescribed by law (i.e., the Constitution), but (thanks in part to Lincoln and his party) as "the boss." We want him -- and Congress -- to so arrange the laws and policies of the entire nation as to give us what we want, regardless of whether it is consitutionally lawful or at whose expense it must be procured.
I encouraged my friend to write the president, but not as "the boss." Instead, I said he should ask that the president censure those representatives who have gone beyond what the law permits, giving him (and them) an explanation of their error. A similar request could be made of the officers of the chambers of Congress to the same effect. And personal letters of censure could be sent to each of the representatives behind the invitation, advising them of their error.
By addressing our elected officials in the above manner, we put them on notice that we are familiar with the U.S. Constitution (which has not been repealed, contrary to popular opinion), and that we expect them to abide by it and the limitations it imposes.
And if it should happen to be the case that we are not familiar with the U.S. Constitution (or at least endeavoring to become so), then shame on us -- and we'd best get started!
posted by Mudrostovich | 7:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home