Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty
How many chief executives, historically, have openly despised the Constitution?
|
The argument that a president is stepping outside of the boundaries of the constitution is not new. Similar charges have been lobbed at every war time president as well as at those chief executives who have been in office during ferocious debates over controversial public policies.
The founders anticipated conflict among the branches of the federal government. Hence, the constitution puts in place mechanisms for checks and balances. Therefore, is it beyond the pale when those in power seek redefine the lines of authority and/or expand the portfolios of their offices? Or does this criticism apply only when the other guy does it?
Two questions I frequently asked a friend when we'd debate the merits of Bush the Younger's administration were:
- Was Bush a "terrible" president because, according to critics, he circumvented the constitution, or was he a remarkably effective president because he could achieve his goals in the face of staunch political opposition?
- Is it a president's responsibility to perform the checks and balances that fall into the briefs of the other two branches of the government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty
|
The founders themselves had some intense rivalries and doubts about each other. These deeply held divisions were downplayed and understudied in the Consensus historiography that followed the Second World War. However, historians have greatly expanded our understanding of how turbulent a time the early national period actually was.*
In short, I think there's much more to be gained politically from criticizing the president for his mishandling of present day issues, his inchoate political philosophy, his profound lack of intellectual depth, his self-serving opportunism, and his poorly-disguised contempt for his supporters and opponents alike, than for his relationship to and understanding of America's past.
YMMV.
________________________________
* A convenient discussion of these three issues--and many others--is available in Robbie J. Totten, "Security, Two Diplomacies, and the Formation of the U.S. Constitution: Review, Interpretation, and New Directions for the Study of the Early National Period,"
Diplomatic History, 36:1 (January 2012): 77-118. And by "convenient" I mean the article is within arm's reach. I do not mean "accessible" nor necessarily "enjoyable."