"... in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
What a whirlwind of intellectual and emotional conflict this long, long election season has been.
Competing interests, philosophical strife, personal wants and needs, deepest hopes and fears, all have been brought to the surface in the race between the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket and Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket (or all those third party candidates for whom you can vote “on principle”).
“… with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Declaration of Independence
Inside the privacy of the voting booth/cubicle/dining room table, I suspect that most Americans will vote on their “lives” (meaning national security/strong defense/terrorism) and their fortunes (“who’s gonna get this economy humming again”). Our sacred honor is not as much a factor, except for, perhaps, evangelical Christians or the most principled among us. This factor makes today’s “moral” issues (abortion, traditional marriage, embryonic stem cell research) fringe issues. That may be why the major candidates gave so little attention to these matters.
Without confessing my own deep struggle between core theological and political views (mostly conservative) and personal identification with race and history (progressive-revisionist), I first had to come to peace with a decision (just make a decision!). I finally resolved the issue by voting my head and praying my heart. Weird and conflicted.
But what does the U.S. Constitution say? If you’re a “limited government” type like me, the Constitution will lead you to the conclusion that we are asking way more of our government than it and its President are empowered to provide. (A different bias will lead one to another conclusion.)
Article II of the Constitution (link to the National Archives ) outlines the job of the Executive branch of government, led by the President, and checked and balanced by the Legislative branch (Article I) and the Judicial branch (Article III). It’s tightly edited. I love that. It specifies what the President must do.
Section 1 outlines the “chusing” of the President, including all that jazz about the term length, Electors (“Electoral College”), citizenship, succession, compensation, and oath. (Pretty fascinating reading, and it proves why the Union is nowhere near a Constitutional crisis. Those founding fathers were sharp, and had contingencies all plotted out.)
Sections 2 and 3 of Article II include the meat of the presidential job description. Section 2 says we’re counting on our president to handle the military (as Commander-in-Chief), grant reprieves and pardons for unjust federal convictions, write treaties (which would cover international relations, including another ignored issue this campaign – immigration), and nominate ambassadors, officers, and most significantly, “Judges of the supreme Court.”
Section 3 outlines the President’s “bully pulpit” powers. He gets to convene both houses of Congress for a “State of the Union” address “from time to time.” He gets to recommend things to the Congress (shouldn’t we all), and he has the power to convene or adjourn both or either houses. He receives ambassadors (should that not have been in Section 2?). He enforces the laws, and he commissions officers.
That’s it. That’s all. That’s plenty. So why do candidates give us many and varied position papers on all manner of policy? How has the President’s cabinet grown to 15 departments (plus the VP, Chief of Staff, OMB, EPA and Trade Rep.)? And there are countless commissions, bureaus and regulatory bodies.
I started thinking about this article by listing the things that mattered most to me in the selection of good presidential material. My issues were: sanctity of life, strong defense (meaning demonstrated personal courage and “toughness,” commitment, and understanding of lethal force), grasp of international relations, leadership and persuasive ability (important for Congressional deal-making), staff and campaign management (the rigors of a national campaign are a solid test of such abilities), personal character, and legal philosophy (by the way, not automatically best handled by lawyers).
Way down the list are various policy positions and proposals on the economy, taxes, health care, the environment, education, and energy.
That’s when I went back to the Constitution. That’s what I usually end up doing, going back to those original, fabulous, creative, flexible, firm documents. Though flawed, they are what the National Archives call “The Charters of Freedom.”
Given what the Constitution outlines, I’m looking for less from government, not more. It will take a stout leader to scale back this monolith of bureaucracy we’ve created. It will take a deep and abiding faith in individuals, in order to allow us to chart our own course and provide for the weakest among us voluntarily. I don’t know how the next President or any President will get us where we need to go.
It’s time to pray.
Competing interests, philosophical strife, personal wants and needs, deepest hopes and fears, all have been brought to the surface in the race between the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket and Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket (or all those third party candidates for whom you can vote “on principle”).
“… with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Declaration of Independence
Inside the privacy of the voting booth/cubicle/dining room table, I suspect that most Americans will vote on their “lives” (meaning national security/strong defense/terrorism) and their fortunes (“who’s gonna get this economy humming again”). Our sacred honor is not as much a factor, except for, perhaps, evangelical Christians or the most principled among us. This factor makes today’s “moral” issues (abortion, traditional marriage, embryonic stem cell research) fringe issues. That may be why the major candidates gave so little attention to these matters.
Without confessing my own deep struggle between core theological and political views (mostly conservative) and personal identification with race and history (progressive-revisionist), I first had to come to peace with a decision (just make a decision!). I finally resolved the issue by voting my head and praying my heart. Weird and conflicted.
But what does the U.S. Constitution say? If you’re a “limited government” type like me, the Constitution will lead you to the conclusion that we are asking way more of our government than it and its President are empowered to provide. (A different bias will lead one to another conclusion.)
Article II of the Constitution (link to the National Archives ) outlines the job of the Executive branch of government, led by the President, and checked and balanced by the Legislative branch (Article I) and the Judicial branch (Article III). It’s tightly edited. I love that. It specifies what the President must do.
Section 1 outlines the “chusing” of the President, including all that jazz about the term length, Electors (“Electoral College”), citizenship, succession, compensation, and oath. (Pretty fascinating reading, and it proves why the Union is nowhere near a Constitutional crisis. Those founding fathers were sharp, and had contingencies all plotted out.)
Sections 2 and 3 of Article II include the meat of the presidential job description. Section 2 says we’re counting on our president to handle the military (as Commander-in-Chief), grant reprieves and pardons for unjust federal convictions, write treaties (which would cover international relations, including another ignored issue this campaign – immigration), and nominate ambassadors, officers, and most significantly, “Judges of the supreme Court.”
Section 3 outlines the President’s “bully pulpit” powers. He gets to convene both houses of Congress for a “State of the Union” address “from time to time.” He gets to recommend things to the Congress (shouldn’t we all), and he has the power to convene or adjourn both or either houses. He receives ambassadors (should that not have been in Section 2?). He enforces the laws, and he commissions officers.
That’s it. That’s all. That’s plenty. So why do candidates give us many and varied position papers on all manner of policy? How has the President’s cabinet grown to 15 departments (plus the VP, Chief of Staff, OMB, EPA and Trade Rep.)? And there are countless commissions, bureaus and regulatory bodies.
I started thinking about this article by listing the things that mattered most to me in the selection of good presidential material. My issues were: sanctity of life, strong defense (meaning demonstrated personal courage and “toughness,” commitment, and understanding of lethal force), grasp of international relations, leadership and persuasive ability (important for Congressional deal-making), staff and campaign management (the rigors of a national campaign are a solid test of such abilities), personal character, and legal philosophy (by the way, not automatically best handled by lawyers).
Way down the list are various policy positions and proposals on the economy, taxes, health care, the environment, education, and energy.
That’s when I went back to the Constitution. That’s what I usually end up doing, going back to those original, fabulous, creative, flexible, firm documents. Though flawed, they are what the National Archives call “The Charters of Freedom.”
Given what the Constitution outlines, I’m looking for less from government, not more. It will take a stout leader to scale back this monolith of bureaucracy we’ve created. It will take a deep and abiding faith in individuals, in order to allow us to chart our own course and provide for the weakest among us voluntarily. I don’t know how the next President or any President will get us where we need to go.
It’s time to pray.
No comments:
Post a Comment