US Law & Presidency
Many non-American people as well as many American citizens do not fully understand the legal premise of our system, nor how the system is designed to function. Because so many have a hazy idea, they often make mistakes in voting and involvement in the political system.
The Presidency: The Office of the US President was designed to be weak and largely one of administration. The primary power is vested in Congress, especially the US House of Representatives. A weal Executive was designed in response to the all-powerful King of England. The US wanted to keep this office very controlled.
From the time our very first President John Handcock, the President has been very limited. Oh, who was that? John who? What about George Washington? John Handcock was the first President of the United States and Congress when he signed the Declaration of Independence in July 1776. He duly held that office, appointed George Washington as General of the Army. President Handcock also financed the first navel vessels in the US Navy. He served as a General as well, but was not a very good military man and did not win any major battles. After the Revolutionary War, the Office of President was abolished as the Articles of Confederation went into effect. John Handcock then went on to become Governor several terms.
Our second President, George Washington was not elected until 1789 under the newly adopted Constitution which was ratified by ¾ of the States and replaced the Articles of Confederation. George Washington saw the importance of keeping the President limited, not only in Executive Power, by in terms served, and voluntarily limited his own service to two terms. This set a long-standing tradition of term limits until Franklin Roosevelt broke tradition by being elected to four terms.
The Powers of US Presidents: The President does not rule by decree or even make legislation. He can influence proposals and bills presented to Congress. He appoints Cabinet members and Judges and can sign treaties, but the Senate must ratify these. The Senate is the official watchdog house of Congress that keeps the President under control. The only legislative power of the President is the Veto. But even this can be overturned by 2/3rds vote of Congress. The House of Representatives can impeach, but only the Senate can remove the President from office.
Legal Theory of the Constitution: US legal theory is NOT that the government grants rights to the people, but rather ALL rights are presumed to belong to the People and the people loan power to a limited federal government. The Bill of Rights was inserted to assure that Congress would NEVER mess around with certain basic rights. The founders of the US were politicians and well knew the tendencies of politicians to circumvent and lawyer their way around laws.
The only job of Congress is to provide common currency, common defense, post roads (nowadays we call them Interstate Highways, and regulate Commerce. It is under the Commerce clause that you will find the vast majority of Congressional legislation. This is done because they cannot make laws easily, and must have some legal basis on which to justify new legislation. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been stretched to limits never conceived by the founding fathers. Congress also has the responsibility to assure that the State continue to provide a republican form of Government and enforce the basic rights of the people.
The States: The States were considered the supreme place where the people at large would conduct most legislative business. The States have the power to call a Constitutional Convention, and the States also appointed the Senators to provide equal representation among the larger and smaller states. This was changed to direct election by the people in the States, but the Senate is the body that still represents the States in Congress. Whereas the House of Representatives represents all the people on a proportional basis.
Presidential Elections: The Office of President was NEVER meant to be filled by a national democratic vote of the people. Why? Because it was not intended to be the voice of the People. The House of Representatives was meant to be the voice of the People and express the Will of the People.
The Electoral College was originally set up because the Electors would represent the Best Interest of People, but not necessarily the Will of the People. The Electoral College was designed to be slightly tilted in favor of smaller States. That is why it has 435 Electors equal to the House, and 100 Electors equal to the Senate. The Senate is tilted in favor of smaller States by being equal to larger States in representation. This may be compared to baseball, e.g. IN the World Series it is NOT how many points you score total (= Popular Vote) but how many Games you win (= Electoral Vote).
Therefore, Bill Clinton only received 43% of the Popular Vote in 1992, but won the Electoral College. (Notice how Democrats never complained about Bill stealing the election) Then, in 1996, Bill Clinton still only won 49% of the Popular Vote, but won the Electoral College. In 2000, George Bush won 49% of the Popular Vote, and while the Florida Electoral vote was still in question, Al Gore capitulated, and PUBLICLY STATED that he CONCEDED the election. In US political Speak, this means that he AGREED that George won the Florida vote and the US election. Al Gore could have withdrawn without making this all-important Concession Speech. Unless Al is a liar, he was stated that he LOST. After the Election the Florida vote was recounted again by various media agencies and George barely won.
Margin of Error: the Margin of error in the 2000 Election was greater than the Margin of victory. Al Gore won the national popular Vote by just over 300,000. The national “under-vote” that is vote that did not get counted was about 2.9 Million. Florida was the only state that got any real attention because of its key role. But, if all the under-vote could have been counted nationally, either man could have been elected. The USA will survive this as it has in the past. It was close, and a decision needed to be made. And, while the US Supreme Court had an unusual And unprecedented role, Al Gore could have gone back to Florida and continued the fight. The final decision was Al’s to make, and he decided to Concede.
Dimpled Chads: Many states use the old punch card voting machine. Every state has some problem with these, but the vast majority is that voters do not FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS clearly posted at the voting booths. This was the famous question asked by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor when questioning lead legal counsel for Al Gore, and counsel had to agree with O’Connor that this was the fundamental problem.
We had the same voting machine here in Illinois, and the instructions are clear. Claims about machine malfunction are without merit. Also, the increased handling and boxing the ballot cards together increased the risk that Chads would be denting other ballots and get popped off thus voiding votes. When I voted, I looked at the ballot and made sure it was clear according to instructions. If I screwed up, then I take responsibility.
What if Al Gore would have won?: Then we would have Al Gore as President. Big deal. Sure some of his policies some would like better, and likely he would have continued some of Clinton’s international policies. So what? The real power is not in the President. Any treaties he signed would have to be ratified by the Senate, but then likely the Democrats would control this body as it now does, plus the VP Joe Lieberman would be President of the Senate.
The Real Power: The US House of Representatives is where the real power is because it represents the proportionate Will of the People. The House, unlike the Senate, controls the Purse Strings to the money. And what party was elected to the House? The Republican Party retained control by virtue of the vote of the People of the USA.
The economy was floundering from 1992 to 1994 until the Republicans took control of both houses and started to engage in their own agenda. Clinton was seriously crippled and so signed on to the Republican agenda against the wishes of Democrats. He then was astute in trying to take credit for the improved economy by virtue of his signing Republican Bills. But the agenda clearly belonged to the Republicans. Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House became more relevant and powerful than Clinton himself.
What really saved the US economy in the last 7 years?: While the Republican Congress did much to roll back taxes, which helped greater to stimulate the economy and get the despotic tax burden lifted somewhat, the real help came from our friendly Foreign Investors! As the world economy, especially the Pacific Rim nations started to have problems, foreign investors poured their money into US banks, CD’s, T-Bills, Bonds, Stocks, Real Estate, and businesses. This infusion of funds from abroad reduced interest rates and caused a boom in the housing market and construction. The cash flow also boosted businesses and consumer spending. Jobs grew, and more cash flow boomed the economy. High Tech and the Internet also boomed and greatly added to the positive developments.
What is happening Now?: Any economic boom will eventually see a slowing cycle or even a downturn. The USA is experiencing a correction that is not even a Recession. Foreign investment is still strong and mortgage interest rates are still low. The low Fed rate does not help mortgage rates much, as this is more a function of foreign and domestic savings and investment. It appears that the economy will bounce back, and has little to do with the US President, or even Congress for that matter.
Bush’s Foreign Policies: The area where George Bush is making the news is his foreign policy and reluctance to be involved in certain treaties. If we take an objective look at what these treaties are about, they do have serious flaws, and one can see why Bush would scrap them and start over. One can also look at them as suggest that the US sign on and then work for improvement. One positive step followed by more steps. This is ideal and I have no doubts that Bush contemplated this approach. But, he may very well believe that the flaws are so deep and comprehensive that it would be better to start over. It is really hard to judge fairly and objectively.
Emotions Run too High: I often find that when people bash Bush, or Clinton, or some other world leader, the majority of the time it is influenced by fear and the resulting emotions, and not always on logic or objective analysis. And, given the best of intentions and efforts, sometimes it is merely a difference of opinion. I find it is safer as a voter to sit back and watch, read a lot, study BOTH sides or ALL sides in an issue before making up my mind where I stand. I find that in discussing and debating these issues that emotions make it very hard to have a rational discussion where each side tries to understand the views of the other. How much more so is this a problem among politicians and the media. These are a representation of the People, and as such they reflect more emotion then rational and objective examination. It is for this reason I find most political discussion difficult if not distasteful. I still talk politics in some forums, but it has become increasingly difficult because those I engage seem to rely more on emotion and rhetoric than on fair and rational debate.
Do I support any Changes in US Presidential Election Law?:
I think the Parliamentary system where the Prime Minister can be ousted with a No Confidence Vote is very useful and would serve to keep the US President weak. It would also allow the Party in Power to control who is President.
Other than that change, I favor no Campaign Financed reform. I believe that Term Limits is the best way, and enough. Otherwise special Interest Lobbies do more good than not, and I favor them. I favor Americans being able to contribute as much as they want to help elect the President ofd a Congressperson. Lots of money is not a guarantee, but it does buy lots of advertising, and is one way the people vote.
I favor the Electoral College not because we need them to think for us. That concept was never really employed as Electors traditionally and later by State laws are bound to vote the Will of the People. But, I like the Electoral College because it tips the scale slightly in favor of smaller States. Hence, George Bush won 30 of 50 States, and only in this regard does he have a mandate, but by the original intent of the Constitution, that is the most legitimate mandate.
I know that many, if not most Americans would prefer a national Popular Vote. there is merit to this view, but I disagree along the lines that it is not the total points that are as important as the games won. I believe that if we go to a Popular Vote, we will further diminish the concept that we are a nation of States. I believe that this erosion will continue to push power away from States and to a central federal system. Too much concentrated power is dangerous. So, while the Popular Vote has clear merits along the lines of equalized fairness, it has the potential of circumventing the States, and that potential is something I do not believe is in our bests interests.
However, if we change the system, then lets change baseball to have on game, 63 innings long (instead of 7 games and 9 innings) and just total the score for all 63 innings. - Amazing