Philosophical Differences - Part I

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. - Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, A Few Good Men

Sometimes, when a professional sports team fires their coach, they annouce that they made the decision because of "philosophical differences." This is to be polite, of course - in normal society, a certain amount of value is placed on a sense of decorum and politeness. In politics, of course, that all goes out the window. We're all guilty of it. Sometimes it bothers me (as it did during the Illinois Gubernatorial debate between inveterate crook Rod Blagoyevich and inveterate crook Judy Baar Topinka - it will take years to clean all the mud off the stage). So let's discuss the upcoming election without the usual invective.

Why do I not support George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al? We don't believe in the same things. In his amazing book, "Don't Think of an Elephant," George Lakoff discusses the idea of "framing", and that Republicans and Democrats tend to look at the role of government differently. One of his points is that traditionally, Republicans take the "father-child" approach to governing, while Democrats take a "mother-child" approach. Of course, this is a generalization, but the idea is that those on the right prefer a system where there is a right and a wrong, and rewards come to those who do right and punishment goes to those who do wrong. The arbiter of what is right or wrong in that family model is the father, and they believe that is what a government should do as well. And not right or wrong as in legal or illegal, but as in "Do you do everything you can to make money to support yourself?" or "Do you do the right thing to protect yourself against danger?". If you do, then you will get rewarded. If you do not, you will get punished.

The current political leadership in the country has taken this idea to a new level. Not only is there a right and a wrong, and the "right" should get rewarded and the "wrong" punished, but those who make the decisions on right vs. wrong are an ever-shrinking group, based entirely on wealth and cronyism, and the rewards and punishments are growing towards both extremes. The "right" people are those who support the powerful, and take their words as unquestionably true, and those who question the government are wrong. Being "different" is also wrong - being gay, being poor, not being an evangelical Christian, being anti-war. If you're right, the rewards are great - tax cuts, friendship from the powerful, the feeling of belonging to the best of the best. If you're wrong, the punishments are growing - ostracism, bigotry, poor taxes, even imprisonment and torture without trial.

In their model, the power belongs with a particular group of elites - politically, in the executive branch, where a small group of (mostly) men will decide what is right and wrong for the nation, and ideally the world. They collect more power, mostly from those who wish to be part of the elite, or who wish favors from the elite. Dissension has no place, since it puts at risk the belief that the powerful are always right.

Listen to President Bush's recent public appearances. His anger is growing - not at the terrorists, or those who wish the United States harm, but at those who disagree with him. Those who challenge his power. Those who are not his political allies. He is the decider. When you were six, and your dad told you to do something, or you'd get in trouble, you didn't look at him and say "That's not part of the familial social contract." You were scared of him. He was an authority figure, and often the absolute one - "wait until your father comes home." That's the role President Bush and his comrades want for the presidency, in perpetuity.

Now, here's what powers the executive branch was granted, in the US Constitution:

Article. II. - Section 1 just deals with how a President is elected, so I'll leave it out here, except for clause 8.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Note that the President does not take an oath to defend the country, or the flag, or Jesus, but the Constitution of the United States.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

This is where those who argue for a more powerful executive branch draw their argument. But notice clearly what it says - "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy". So the President is, indeed, the supreme military commander of our armed forces, but there is nothing relating to the expansion of presidential powers in wartime.

he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So the President has the power to get opinions from people and to pardon people guilty of crimes short of impeachment. Nothing in there about imprisoning people.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, can do a bunch of stuff - make treaties and appoint people to jobs. Again, nothing about the expansion of powers during wartime.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The President will give a speech every year. The President will call Congress to session and tell them to do stuff. The President will take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed (herein we get signing statements, from those who believe that the President can decide what "faithfully" means).

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And the President and other members of the executive branch can be removed from office.

You can look at the amendments as well - none of them give additional powers to the executive branch. There are term limits, and changes in electoral processes, but that's it.

In Part II of this, I'll take a look at the Federalist Papers, which aren't at the same level as the Constitution, but speak directly to the intent of the framers.