I propose an Amendment to the US Constitution to abolish the presidency – at least, as we know it. There would still be a President but he would not be – as he is now – an Imperial President.
My amendment would render as obsolete most of Article II of the Constitution, which opens by saying:
“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
I propose the following as a change in that sentiment:
“The President of the United States shall be considered primarily as the nominal head of state, as a diplomat serving at the pleasure of and under the instruction of Congress.”
It is important here to immediately address what I mean by “Congress.” Most Americans hold their duly-elected Congressmen in such low esteem, even used car salesmen look good. So I couldn’t possibly mean that kind of Congress. Instead, I foresee a Congress composed entirely of independents who are unaligned with any interest group or political party. Redefining Congress in this way is important in light of these two parts of my proposed amendment:
· The only persons eligible to serve as President will be sitting Congressmen.
· The only persons eligible to vote for President will be sitting Congressmen.
That is to say, the President will have been an actively-serving Congressman who surrenders that office upon being elected by a majority of his fellow Congressmen for a four year term as President.
I can hear the hue and cry now about We-the-People being stripped of our right to choose our leader. [As if We really have much choice in the matter.] However, that redefined leader will have very few powers and will serve his four year term unless Congress, for any reason of its choosing, decides to replace him at any time, with or without cause.
The President that I envision will be Congress’s chief representative in dealings with foreign nations. That is, he’ll be a conduit through which the sense of the Congress will be known. He will not, however, be the Chief Executive who presides over the agencies currently listed under his control; Congress will determine who will lead those agencies and those leaders will be subject to immediate replacement by Congress. However, as long as they are in charge, they can manage these agencies, with their decisions being subject to Congressional override.
The President will have nothing to do with Supreme Court nominations; there’s no reason the Congress couldn’t handle that task on its own.
The President will not be Commander in Chief, since the Congress itself (or a select few Congressmen of its choosing) will convey its orders to our armed forces. The only military function to be served by the President, which is a carryover from past presidents, is his role in launching the US’s nuclear weapons.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our Founding Fathers’ single greatest failure was in determining that we needed (what is really) a One-Man Branch of Government. Unfortunately, this de facto king managed to acquire ever-increasing power unto himself. Our greatest failure as an electorate was to go along with this scam.
Even the Constitution makes plain that it is Congress that is to be preeminent, since Congress is mentioned first (in Article I) and the Presidency second (in Article II). But, lo and behold, we all went along with the nonsense that we have three separate but equal branches of government. That absolutely was never the intention: Congress was meant to be dominant. For those who doubt that, ask yourself this: Why is Congress the only branch that can (without being subject to appeal) impeach members of the other two branches but can't itself be impeached?
Closing Thoughts
We don’t really need a President, in our current sense of what that office implies. Instead of being a leader, too often he is a lightning rod that attracts opposition to himself simply because that’s just one more way to attack his political party. The President becomes a polarizing figure who manages to bring out the basest emotions of the body politic as each election cycles begins anew.
If we had a President who ceased to be so vital to the legislative process, then We-the-People would start paying more attention to having a quality Congress. Having an Imperial President tends to muddy the waters, helping us lose our focus.
This last part might not seem all that important, but I would eliminate this sentence from Article II:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I am amazed that this had been included in the first place by the Founding Fathers, especially since it’s there for no good reason. I mean, come on people, once a candidate is elected President, should he be denied his office if he should decide to refuse to take this oath?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“We will probably never change our minds about the presidency because we share so much in common with citizens of other nations – civilized or not: We love our strongman form of government.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment