Posts
WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDING FATHERS THINK OF THE GROWTH OF EXECUTIVE POWER?
BY
ALLAN C.BROWNFELD
------------------------------
Executive
power has been steadily growing, regardless of which party was in
power. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to declare
war. Still, we have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan
and a host of other places upon the authority of the president alone.
Today, the president, on his own authority--without approval by
Congress---imposes tariffs upon China, Canada and a host of other
countries. We are even told by some that a president cannot be indicted
or subpoenaed---even though the Constitution says no such thing. This
would, in effect, place a president above the law. And how many of the
rules under which we live have been imposed by executive order----by
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump---with no
action by our elected representatives in Congress?
The
Founding Fathers understood that freedom was not man's natural state.
Their entire political philosophy was based on a fear of government
power and the need to limit and control that power very strictly, It
was their fear of total government which initially caused them to rebel
against the arbitrary rule of King George III. In the Constitution,
they tried their best to construct a form of government which, through a
series of checks and balances and a clear division of powers, would
protect the individual.
The
Founding Fathers would be disappointed to see the growth of government
power, particularly in the executive branch. But they would not be
surprised. In a letter to Edward Carrington, Thomas Jefferson wrote
that, "The natural progress is for Liberty to yield and government to
gain ground." He noted that, "One of the most profound preferences in
human nature is for satisfying one's needs and desires with the least
possible exertion, for appropriating wealth produced by the labor of
others, rather than producing it by one's own labor...the stronger and
more centralized the government , the safer would be the guarantees of
such monopolies, the weaker the producer, the less consideration need be
given him and the more might be taken away from him."
That
governent should be limited---and clearly divided between separate
branches---and that power is a corrupting force was the essential
perception held by the men who formed the nation. In The Federalist
Papers, James Madison declared: "It may be a reflection on human nature
that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of
government...But what is government itself but the greatest of all
reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be
necessary. If Angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government
which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies
in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed,
and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."
The
Founding Fathers were not utopians. They understood man's nature.
They attempted to form a government which was consistent with---not
contrary to---that nature. Alexander Hamilton pointed out that, "Here
we already have seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those
idle theories which which have amused us with promises of an exemption
from the imperfections, weaknesses, and evils incident to society in
every shape. Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a
golden age and adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our
political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the
globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and
perfect virtue."
Rather
than viewing man and government in positive terms, the framers of the
Constitution had almost precisely the opposite view. John Adams
expressed the view that, "Whoever would found a state and make proper
laws for the government of it, must presume that all men are bad by
nature." Adams attempted to learn something from the pages of history:
"We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over,
for proofs irrefragable, that the people , when they have been
unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel
as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power...All projects
of government, formed upon a supposition of continued vigilance,
sagacity, and virtue, firmness of the people when possessed of the
exercise of supreme power, are cheats and delusions...The fundamental
article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited
sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular
assembly, an aristocratic council, an oligarchical junto, and a single
emperor. Equally bloody, arbitrary, cruel, and in every respect
diabolical."
During the
colonial period, Americans became all too familiar with the dangers of
an all powerful King and unlimited and arbitrary government. The
Revolution was fought to prevent such abuses. When the Articles of
Confederation were being considered, fears of excessive concentration of
authority were often expressed. The town of West Springfield,
Massachusetts, to cite one examples, reminded its representatives of the
"weaknesses of human nature and growing thirst for power...It is
freedom, Gentlemen, it is freedom., and not a choice of the forms of
servitude for which we contend."
To
prevent the growth of unlimited government power, the Constitution
divided government between a legislative, executive and judicial
branch. The Congress was to be the most important branch, elected by
the people on a frequent basis. The experience of life under an
all-powerful King made a powerful president less than appealing. As
years went by, however, the executive---whether Democrat or
Republican---assumed more and more power.
Under
President George W. Bush, for example, many began to refer to a new
"Imperial Presidency." The Cato Institute study, "The Cult of the
Presidency" notes that the Bush administration's broad assertion of
executive power include.: "...the power to.launch wars at will,
to,tap.phones and read e-mails without a warrant, and to seize American
citizens on American soil and hold them for the duration of the war on
terror---in other words, perhaps forever---without ever having to answer
to a judge."
The study's
author, Eugene Healy, points out that, "Neither left nor Right see the
president as the Framers saw him: a constitutionally constrained chief
executive with an important, but limited, job: to defend the country
when attacked, check Congress when it violates the Constitution, ,
enforce the law---and little else. Today, for conservatives as well as
liberals, it is the president's job to,protect us from harm, to 'grow
the economy,' to spread democracy and American ideals abroad, and even
to heal spiritual malaise."
The
modern presidency has become one far different from the one set forth
in the Constitution. The Cato Institute provides this assessment: "The
constitutional presidency , as the Framers conceived it, was designed
to stand against the popular will as often as not, with the president
wielding the veto power to restrain Congress when it transgressed its
constitutional bounds. In contrast, the modern president considers
himself the tribune of the people, promising transformative action and
demanding the power to carry it out. The result is what political
scientist Theodore J. Lowi has termed 'the plebiscitary presidency':
'An office of tremendous personal power drawn from people...and based
on the...theory that the presidency with all powers is the necessary
condition for governing a large democratic nation.'"
The
men who,led the Revolution, different from many today---in both
parties---were suspicious of power and those who hold it. Samuel Adams
declared: "There is a degree of watchfulness over all men possessed of
power or influence upon which the liberties of mankind much depend. It
is necessary to guard against the infirmities of the best as well as the
wickedness of the worst of men. Jealousy is the best security of
public Liberty."
The
Founding Fathers would not be happy with our increasingly powerful
government---and chief executive --but they would not be surprised.
Leaving the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what
kind of government had been established. He replied, "A Republic if you
can keep it."
People who call themselves "conservative" used to understand all this. Now, they seem to have forgotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment