Questions for Candidates
Janet and I attended a campaign stop for John Edwards today. Reserving the right to change my opinion as I learn more, as of right now my favorite two options for President are John Edwards on the left and Ron Paul on the right.
Anyway, as is the nature of campaign stops, there's never enough time for the candidate to answer everyone's questions, and so as he began to run out of time, he said "Look, I owe it to you all to answer all of your questions. If you have any that I didn't get to, please send them to me and I promise I'll get your answer to you."
Now, unfortunately, I'd rather have seen him answer mine live rather than have time to think or consult others (or even have a staffer answer), but such is life. So I sent my question in.
I just thought I'd share my question, a question I'd actually like to see all of them (except Mr. Paul, who has already answered it to my satisfaction) answer.
If one actually reads the Constitution, it's clear that the founders of our country intended the states to be the strongest section of our government and the Federal government weaker. Additionally, it's pretty clear they intended most of the power to be in the hands of the Legislative and Judicial branches, with the Executive a weaker third sibling.
And yet right now we seem to have it exactly upside down, with as close to an imperial presidency as we've ever had with significantly less power in the Congress (and a push to limit that of the Judiciary) and even less actually left to the states to decide.
My question is a difficult one for anyone who wants to become President: What will you do if elected to limit your own (and future Presidents') power and restore the Constitutionally intended balance to government here in our nation?
Liam.
posted by Liam at 10/13/2007 09:01:00 PM
7 Comments:
How did Ron Paul answer the question to your satisfaction?
And who the heck is Ron Paul? (can you tell I don't look to the right? lol )
And did you consider you might get an answer from some candidate saying, "Who says the government is unbalanced?"
Great question and an important one, btw.
Sunday, October 14, 2007 1:58:00 PM
Absolutely that's a possible answer. It is, for me, a WRONG one, but it is a possible one.
Ron Paul is hard line strict constructionist on the Constitution. Not "strict constructionist" in the sense that it's been used lately, the sense of "Strictly constructed the way we're going to pretend the Constitution was constructed based on the whims and wishes of the religious right, to whom we're bowing", but in the sense of "actually reading the Constitution and wanting to correct where we've gone wrong."
He's a bit too isolationist for me in the long term (he supports pulling out of the U.N. and NATO, for example), but he definitely supports returning power to the States that should be with the States and returning oversight power to the Congress. He's against the war in Iraq but supported the war in Afghanistan (like me). And he's actually fiscally conservative, the side of conservatism that I've always agreed with (and the part that's gone almost entirely away under every Republican since Reagan was elected).
But that's pretty much his entire platform, it's all about correcting where we've completely gone wrong to the point of unconstitutionality.
Thanks for stopping in!
Liam.
Sunday, October 14, 2007 6:22:00 PM
I'm a bit unclear on your use of the word "should".
It's clear that you favor shifting power (ok, "returning" power) to the states, Judiciary and Legislative branches, and away from the executive branch (and possibly Congress). It's clear also that you believe it to be clear that the authors of the constitution agreed with that position.
Does your use of the word "should" mean more than "I and the founders agree"? Or is it more connected with the bad behavior of the executive?
Am I making any sense? I'm just trying to distinguish among, by analogy, (a) noticing that the chicken has crossed the road, (b) picking the chicken up and moving her back to the original side, and (c) scolding her for moving across the road in the first place.
Monday, October 15, 2007 3:57:00 PM
The "chicken crossing the road" analogy breaks down in this regard: You would never want to return a chicken PART WAY back across the road unless you're a big fan of flat chickens.
Nevertheless, with that in mind, I'm in favor of B, moving the chicken back at least in the direction of the side of the road that I believe he "should" be on.
I'm not fanatical about it, I do believe there are probably some aspects of life which are different than they were in colonial times which require some adaptation to the way we do things. On the other hand, we do have a mechanism in place for making those necessary changes: Constitutional Amendment.
But to me, the 9th and 10th Amendments are pretty clear (remember, unlike later Amendments, the first 10 were included almost from the start).
The 9th was to address James Madison's concern (I think, I might have the guy wrong, this is from memory) that by enumerating a "Bill of Rights" someone later would argue that anything not listed there was therefore not a right. I've actually heard that argument espoused by some on the right. Thus, did they include:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the 10th specifically says that unless the Constitution says it's a Federal power, it isn't. It isn't clear as to which are States powers and which are individuals' rights, but it is quite clear on limitations on Federal power:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I'm not opposed to further Amendments to the Constitution to grant further powers to the Federal Government (because the process to Amend is difficult enough that it can't be done lightly or easily, and yet easy enough to be doable when truly warranted). But as long as our Constitution is held up as the core document at the center of our society, we should damn well be living up to it.
And yet it appears to me as though many things the Federal goverment does these days can not be found anywhere in the Constitution, and therefore, are technically un-Constitutional violations of the law.
Liam.
Monday, October 15, 2007 5:25:00 PM
I get email notices of what will be featured on episodes of PBS' series Frontline. I noticed today a description of this week's Frontline, the following is a portion:
"On Tuesday, in "Cheney's Law," [Michael] Kirk tells one of the most significant stories of our times. In this report Kirk outlines how two men -- Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal adviser, David Addington -- used a little-known group inside the Justice Department to interpret the law so as to greatly enhance presidential power. Their assertion of virtually unlimited presidential authority to conduct the war on terror, both abroad and at home, raises profound constitutional questions. Especially controversial is the role of Congress to act as a check on executive power."
This made me think of your discussion here. I'm sure you, Liam, have discussed it all at length. But it should be an interesting program.
Monday, October 15, 2007 10:32:00 PM
Yup, I heard about that show too. Unfortunately, we don't have a local PBS station here, but on the plus side, it's also viewable on-line starting tomorrow.
I'm not sure where, presumably somewhere on PBS.org.
Liam.
Monday, October 15, 2007 11:40:00 PM
Frontline does post many of their programs after they've been aired. I've watched several of them that way. They are interesting. I bet they will post that one. They have a preview on there now. Here's the link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
You can get to the same page by going to pbs.org and searching for Frontline.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:29:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home