Most aren’t sure where the power sits | Rich Elfers

What do voters want to know about the November elections? This was my question to a retired political science teacher friend recently (I will be teaching a Green River College continuing education course on the 2016 elections next week and was looking for ideas). His response was, “What do voters need to know about what the Constitution actually says about the powers of the president and Congress?”

What do voters want to know about the November elections? This was my question to a retired political science teacher friend recently (I will be teaching a Green River College continuing education course on the 2016 elections next week and was looking for ideas). His response was, “What do voters need to know about what the Constitution actually says about the powers of the president and Congress?”

Most Americans do not know what powers Congress has versus what powers the president has.

It was thought when the Constitution was created in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia that Congress would be the dominant power of the three branches. As a result, Congressional power was far more clearly defined and delineated with 18 delegated powers and 8 powers denied to Congress in Article I section 8.

Examples of delegated powers are to “lay and collect Taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…to borrow Money… to coin money…to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts…to declare War….”

Examples of powers denied to Congress are the ability to suspend the writ of habeas corpus (except in cases of rebellion), to tax state exports to other states and to grant titles of nobility.

The powers of the president are much less defined in Article II of the Constitution: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy… and of the Militia of the several States…. He shall have the 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…Judges of the supreme Court…(and) to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate….”

As you can see, the power of the presidency as set forth in the Constitution is much more limited and less delineated than that of Congress. Through the years, proud and powerful presidents like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt have expanded on those undefined powers. As a result, presidents have pushed those boundaries and set important precedents that continue down to our own time.

When we hear presidential candidates promise to set up a fence along the U.S. Mexican border and have the Mexicans pay for it, to limit immigration and deport undocumented immigrants, to impose taxes on some imports, to give free college education to Americans, to provide massive investment for solar power in Arizona, to create “a political revolution” to end income inequality in this nation, and even to force Nabisco to make Oreos in the United States instead of overseas, we should be educated enough in the Constitution to know presidential limits.

American voters should compare Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution. If U.S. citizens did that they would soon realize that most campaign promises have no basis in the Constitution and should be taken for what they really are: falsehoods, and/or candidate ignorance of what powers presidents actually have. For presidential candidates, politics and hope trump (no pun intended) law and reality.

The ancient Israelites had a requirement for their kings to hand copy the law (the first five books of the Bible) as part of their duties as a monarch (Deuteronomy 17:18). There should be the same kind of requirement for those in public office.

Every president should have to hand copy the U.S. Constitution so they actually know what it says.

My political science friend was right, it is more important to teach voters what they need to know rather than what they want to know about how our government actually works. Constitutional ignorance only serves to allow demagogues to rise; it does not make for good government.

 

More in Opinion

The times, they are a-changin’

My friends, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is advancing in such leaps and bounds it boggles my imagination.

Thank you Murray for increasing Alzheimer’s research funding

As someone who helped care for a mother with Alzheimer’s and who now misses her every day, I understand firsthand the impact this disease has on families across America.

Tribalism led to the loss of Vietnam, Iraq wars

Knowing and understanding tribalism can offer a solution to the divisions at home and abroad.

The Fennel Creek Trail will benefit nearby communities

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the increased number of people using trails discourages criminal activities by increasing the number of eyes watching what is going on.

The sweetest revenge? Sometimes it’s just being nice

Being kind to others, especially those who have harmed or hurt us, comes as a result of seeing others as our equals.

Mental health competency delays cost state millions

Soon, some of those languishing lengthy periods behind bars might need to be released and charges against them dismissed.

State Dems may abandon caucus chaos in 2020

Last week the state Democratic Party signaled a greater ope nness to allocate delegates ba sed on the results of the prim ary rather than caucuses, whic h it’s never done before.

The four cornerstones of arguing irrationally

Don’t get caught up in the techniques people use to ignore rational arguments.

State Dems may abandon caucus chaos in time for 2020

Washington also is considering becoming more significant by moving its primary to early March.

A taste of Krain history, from its dive-bar days

I first went in the place one winter’s evening when I was 8 or 9 years old.

Supreme Court resets the playing field

The ruling on the Masterpiece Bakery v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case wasn’t a win for the right or a loss for the left; it’s a chance to do things right the second time around.

Supreme Court ruling shows sanity, moderation

The 14th Amendment equal protection clause does not negate the First Amendment religious freedom clause.