§ ≡ A section of Preserve, Protect, and Defend: Faithfully Executing the Office of the President
{Section 4.9 « Section 5.1 » Section 5.2}
The United States is a constitutional republic, which
During the tortuous, extremely expensive (costliest in U.S. history at $5.3 billion in spending), and sometimes mind-numbing Election Campaign 2008, the ambitions of the candidates prevented them from reminding potential voters what the limits of their elective powers are in our constitutional republic. The overwhelming emphasis of the campaigning was to portray the individual candidate's similarities to and agreement with the electorate, as if the ideal elected representative of the people would be their genomic clone.
The elected officials' marching orders (and those of their appointees) are not, repeat not to implement the perceived wishes of the majority of voters. The word mandate is not to be found in the Constitution. Their duties are, rather, to attempt to govern and lead the Nation, and by extension its citizenry, such that the Nation as a whole survives and, if possible prospers, through judicious and Constitutionally limited exercise of power. Our government officials exercise these powers until the electorate's next opportunity to exercise its own power, which is in turn Constitutionally limited to electing their representatives.
I don't think Adams' "government of laws" conceptualization is well understood by the general populace, or even by some elected officials; the latter never seem to allude to it. As for the populace, there are many of them who believe that even a protest rally, if the number of participants and number of decibels is high enough, must be a decisive influence on the targeted elected officials. This is a false presumption. Whereas elections introduce a degree of separation between the powers of the elected and those of the electorate, there is complete insulation of the government from mob influence. No power is granted to a crowd of protesters, no matter how agitated or how convinced of their righteousness they may be. The appearance of cause-and-effect, if any, is purely coincidental.
An election campaign has nothing to do with aggregating the electorate's "shopping lists" for subsequent government action. It has everything to do with elevating the candidates' leadership profiles and winning the election.
If the above-discussed concepts sound strange or counter-intuitive to you it may be that you were absent when they were being taught in high-school civics studies, in which case some remedial study is truly mandated (by common sense).
{Section 4.9 « Section 5.1 » Section 5.2}
The United States is a constitutional republic, which
[...] is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. [...] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as ‘a government of laws, and not of men.’John Adams' insightful definition illuminates the significance of elected representation in the United States. It is not, as is commonly thought, equivalent to the granting of a proxy; it is much more than such a grant. It institutionalizes our Nation's rule of law by introducing a crucial degree of separation from the mob-like tyranny of the majority.
During the tortuous, extremely expensive (costliest in U.S. history at $5.3 billion in spending), and sometimes mind-numbing Election Campaign 2008, the ambitions of the candidates prevented them from reminding potential voters what the limits of their elective powers are in our constitutional republic. The overwhelming emphasis of the campaigning was to portray the individual candidate's similarities to and agreement with the electorate, as if the ideal elected representative of the people would be their genomic clone.
The elected officials' marching orders (and those of their appointees) are not, repeat not to implement the perceived wishes of the majority of voters. The word mandate is not to be found in the Constitution. Their duties are, rather, to attempt to govern and lead the Nation, and by extension its citizenry, such that the Nation as a whole survives and, if possible prospers, through judicious and Constitutionally limited exercise of power. Our government officials exercise these powers until the electorate's next opportunity to exercise its own power, which is in turn Constitutionally limited to electing their representatives.
I don't think Adams' "government of laws" conceptualization is well understood by the general populace, or even by some elected officials; the latter never seem to allude to it. As for the populace, there are many of them who believe that even a protest rally, if the number of participants and number of decibels is high enough, must be a decisive influence on the targeted elected officials. This is a false presumption. Whereas elections introduce a degree of separation between the powers of the elected and those of the electorate, there is complete insulation of the government from mob influence. No power is granted to a crowd of protesters, no matter how agitated or how convinced of their righteousness they may be. The appearance of cause-and-effect, if any, is purely coincidental.
An election campaign has nothing to do with aggregating the electorate's "shopping lists" for subsequent government action. It has everything to do with elevating the candidates' leadership profiles and winning the election.
If the above-discussed concepts sound strange or counter-intuitive to you it may be that you were absent when they were being taught in high-school civics studies, in which case some remedial study is truly mandated (by common sense).
Well said, Sir. My compliments.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sir. I appreciate your interest and your feedback.
ReplyDeleteFinally got to reading this today. My main question is: given your contempt for the idea that an election is a mandate, how can you support George Bush, who declared his second election victory a mandate and then proceeded to limit constitutional checks on the presidency? It seems to me that if your primary feeling about the presidency is that it ought to ensure the limited role of the government and the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution, then you cannot also support the policies of an administration that made every effort to increase the powers of the president beyond any scope previously seen in the US.
ReplyDeleteThe statement that a Presidential election is not a mandate is not an expression of contempt. It is a statement of Constitutional fact, a fact that you and many others seem not to comprehend. Though most candidates, including President Bush and President-elect Obama, use rhetoric that suggests otherwise, the fact remains that the Constitution imposes no obligation on the President to do anything other than what is in the Oath of Office.
ReplyDeleteIt is not merely my "primary feeling about the presidency is that it ought to ensure the [Constitutionally] limited role of the government and the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution". That is in fact the Law of the Land.
As to the repeated claims that President Bush somehow attempted and/or actually managed to "shred the Constitution" as I've often heard it said, that is liberal hyperbole and a disparaging characterization of a sitting President and a decent man. Nevertheless, had there actually been any supporting evidence of such Unconstitutional behavior, the Constitution does specify remedial action that the liberal majority in Congress would have been all too willing to invoke.