Constitutional Freedom

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

In the above section it is clear that the President does have the authority per the Constitution to “recommend to their Consideration such Measures..”.  Ultimately this becomes a judgment call as to what the definition of recommend is.  Recent administrations have “recommended” entire bills that they have written or crafted.  It seems that the President should encourage congress to consider serious issues and to seek a solution that best serves the interest of the American people.  Oddly enough it might seem that the current administration took this tack with the Health Care overhaul.  The author feels that while the tack may have been technically appropriate, the failure is more in the conclusion reached than in the recommendation.

Other items in this section seem fairly standard and are practices with which the average American is familiar.  The annual state of the union is something that is analyzed and reviewed, where the President list’s his agenda for a year just after saying that the “state of the nation is ’strong’”.  I find that statement ironic considering the list of items they feel need to be corrected.

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have 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, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Much of what is laid out above is familiar to most Americans.  We recognize the President as the Commander in Chief, as one having the ability to pardon, and as one who nominates ambassadors and supreme court justices.  One of the more controversial issues today is the President’s ability to appoint “inferior Officers”, which we now know as Czars.  President Obama has decided to name his inferior appointments Czars.  This name seems counter to the spirit of Americanism.  It is the opinion of the author that the President should not use this title for these appointments.  Additionally, the constitution does allow the President to make inferior appointments without consent of congress; however, President Obama has taken this privilege to a new level.

For example the President has at least 32 Czars; many of which have responsibilities that could be managed by departments already in existence, with leaders who are approved by the Senate.  It almost appears that President Obama is attempting to operate within the technical writing of the constitution, but is ignoring the spirit of the writing in the constitution.

“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

Article II is about the executive branch of the the U.S. Government.  At the time of this writing, Barack Obama is currently the President and has been duly elected in the manner set forth in the Section 1.  There has been much debate with regards to the system known as the “Electoral College”.  For example, in 2000 the popular vote was in favor of Al Gore, but the Electoral College vote favored George W. Bush.  This was due primarly to a “winner take all” assumption in each state. 

It is the feeling of the author that ultimately there are some significant advantages to the electoral college that make it preferential over any other system.  Let me use a game of numbers to explain:

Let’s suppose the U.S. did not have the electoral college and that the President was determined by a series of run-off elections.  Meaning that there were multiple rounds of elections and ultimately when a majority of the country voted for 1 candidate then that candidate was the president.  Let’s begin with 10 candidates 4 from “majority parties” such as the Democratic Party or Republican Party and 6 from alternative parties, such as the Communisty Party, Independent Party, Socialist Party, Constitutional Party, Green party, etc.  Now let us assume that the 4 from the “majority parties” split their voters and that the Communist Party acquires 15% of the vote and that this is the most votes for one candidate.  Followed by 12% for the Socialist party, 10% for the green party and 4 or 5% for all the remaining candidates.  The field is eliminated to the top 4 candidates and we are left with no single candidate from a “majority party”.  The country elects a candidate that is ultimately only representing 10% or less of the population.  This is not majority rule as intended but rather minority rule. 

Now let’s review this scenario from the perspective of the current system.  First, no party presents more than 1 candidate, thus eliminating a party split.  Second, the winner of a state is awarded the entire states electoral votes, thus encouraging a focus on winning a majority in each state.  As such it is very unlikely for a party’s candidate that represents only a small portion of the general population to actually win the election, thus preserving the rule of the majority.