TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum - View Single Post

Bugs · 31-08-2008, 06:32 PM

This is an interesting article on really about the office of the president and less about each of the candidates. Kind of outlining how the president really doesn’t have the power to be the end all be all of things based upon the constitution. The thing is the Bush has really pushed the envelope on this and has grown the power of the executive branch tremendously over the past eight year. The scary thing is that he has been allowed to do so.
MinnPost - Obama and McCain: Running for an office not in the Constitution

Quote:

The vision of president who is a combination "guardian angel, shaman and Supreme Warlord of the Earth" is so pervasive that Americans are reduced to weighing campaign rhetoric without the balance of context. Partisans will be praising, journalists will be reporting and pundits analyzing what Obama and McCain would do as president. Doing so, they miss the key question: What should a president do?

Quote:

The War on Terror, the Global Warming Crisis, the Health Care Crisis, the Energy Crisis, the Education Crisis all have resulted in expansion of federal and presidential authority, and still Americans expect the government and the president to do more.

Not me, the "more" that I want out of the goverment and the president to do is to get out of my way more.

Quote:

...the constitutional presidency was designed to stand against the popular will as often as not. The Constitution gives the president veto power to restrain Congress when it passes laws that overstep constitutional bounds. The modern presidency, on the other hand, has become the "tribune of the people," promising transformative action and demanding the power to carry it out. And Congress complies.

The "And Congress complies" bit is a big problem.

Quote:

In the everyday affairs, Congress also abdicates its constitutional obligations to the executive branch. It delegates authority and dodges responsibility. Congress delegates its legislative authority by authorizing unelected bureaucrats to create regulations for which individual congresspersons take no responsibility when they prove detrimental or unpopular. Congress delegates its control of the public purse to those same bureaucrats with similar results; individual congresspersons selectively criticize runaway spending without acknowledging that ultimately spending is constitutionally solely under their control.

When push comes to shove, push the blame onto someone else - welcome to politics in America today.

Quote:

"True political heroism rarely pounds its chest or pounds the pulpit, preaching rainbows and uplift, and promising to redeem the world through military force," he writes. "A truly heroic president is one who appreciates the virtues of restraint — who is bold enough to act when action is necessary, yet wise enough, humble enough to refuse powers he ought not have. That is the sort of presidency we need now more than ever. And we won't get that kind of presidency until we demand it."

Looks like we won't get it any time soon. One candidate is blamed for being the "preaching rainbows and uplift" bit, and the other is blamed for being the "promising to redeem the world through military force" bit.

Fundamentally there has been a long, relatively slow moving shift in the US towards more and more federal control - which translates to less and less, state/local control. Actually one of my main issues with national health care, is the "national" bit. I am generally not in favor of any new "national" programs, and truth be told had I been around when social security was pushed thru I probably would have been against it - since it is a national program.

All I want is for government to get the hell out of the way and let the America people make things happen on their own.