So, the balance of power is one of my top priorities. Luckily, I think the balance of power is very close to ideal. The president is not a figurehead, nor is he a despot. When the president is up to the task, he is capable of leading the nation, but his power is neatly checked to prevent him from controlling the country. This is the most remarkable aspect of the Constitution, to me. The system of checks and balances—which seems almost chanced-upon, after hearing about the intense negotiation that created it—is not only elegant in principle, but effective in action.
The one balance tweak I can think of concerns the presidential pardon. Although the controversial abuses in the past haven't been particularly damaging to the nation as far as I know (the same can't be said for Ford's reelection campaign), I think making the pardon subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court makes sense. Granted, this wouldn't be judicial review in the traditional sense, since the pardons wouldn't be checked for constitutionality. The check would be in place simply to prevent the use of the pardon to commit political crimes harmful to the country.
On it's face, the presidential pardon is a power without a check, and could allow, as the anti-Federalists feared, the president to commit crimes of any sort via proxy, then pardon the offender. While such gross misconduct would hopefully result in an impeachment/removal, those pardons would stand, if I understand correctly. The unilateral power to forgive is nice on paper, but the potential abuses unsettle me.
Next is the electoral college. I'm done with it. I'd dissolve it in a heartbeat. Arguments for it are unconvincing to me. It seems to be extremely black and white. If the majority of Americans vote for one candidate, no arbitrary, unnecessary bureaucratic structure should stand in the way. Cable news networks could still have their pretty red and blue maps and talk about who's going to win Florida, but the 49.99% of the state who voted for the other guy wouldn't have to be so completely disenfranchised. In addition, as Michele Boulais articulates here,
"The electoral college gives unfair weight to smaller states. Under this system, not all votes are created equal. Yes, the number of electoral votes states receive are divided sorta kinda on population numbers, but look at this comparison*:Wyoming: population- 544,270 electoral votes- 3California: population- 36,961,664 electoral votes- 55One Wyoming vote: 5.512 e^-6 One California vote: 1.488 e^-6"
Elections are already complicated enough without indirect presidential elections in which "one man one vote" isn't just politically incorrect.
Finally, signing statements are absurd. Separation of powers exists for a reason. The president shouldn't be able to sign a bill, then add an asterisk that potentially changes the effect of the entire law. Essentially, through signing statements, the president can legislate, and the actual legislature can't do anything about it. George W. Bush issued over 1000 signing statements during his presidency. That's roughly 1000 too many. The legislature can't do the president's job, so he shouldn't be able to do theirs.
Since this power obviously isn't among the enumerated powers in the Constitution, I would add the following clause to Article I, Section 7, after the second line of the second paragraph:
"The President may not redact, amend, or otherwise alter the content of any Bill."
That's all I've got, and not for lack of trying. The system of checks and balances satisfies me. I've tried to think of other powers the president should have, and I really can't. He has all the powers he requires to fulfill his role in the government, and none that would allow him to encroach on the role of others.
Corin Chellberg
No comments:
Post a Comment