24 July 2007

The case for a constructionist President

George W. Bush and his allies, all three or four of them, like to say that they believe in "strict constructionist" judges which they contends means a literal interpretation of the US Constitution based on the thoughts and knowledge of the framers at the time they wrote the document but which really means that judges should not interpret the Constitution except in accordance with the political, religious and, if I can use the term in reference to the Decider(TM) without seeming unduly ironic, philosophical beliefs of the President.,

However he does not like to restrict himself to this literal interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to the perceived duties and powers of the presidency. If there is one thing that the framers seemed to unanimously agree on it was that they desired a weak executive with none, or at least few, of the powers that they associated with Kings and Emperors. The President, who is unlikely to have ever read the Federalist Papers or any of the other documents that help us to understand the thinking that went into the construction of the Constitution some years after the United States of America became a free country. He clearly does not understand the document's roots in English Common Law hence his total disregard for the right of habeas corpus. One suspects that perhaps his Attorney General does not understand this, or at least does not wish to understand it, as he has pointed out that habeas doesn't actually appear in the Constitution as a right; the framers would have felt that it was so basic that this inclusion was completely unnecessary.

What George really seems to want is an imperial presidency; one in which he says something and that is the end of the argument. His pronouncements simply trump anything that comes out of any other branch of government. He has ruled checks and balances extinct; perhaps he would term them "quaint".

Well it is time that we returned to a presidency whose powers are more in line with what was envisioned two centuries and a bit ago; where the president serves at the pleasure of the people; where the president is a servant of the people and not the other way around.

No comments: