Some people have viewed my previous political posts as being negative; that they show my hate for Mr. Trump.
This is not true.
I have never met him, and my concerns are about what I see are the underlying principles of his policies.
My attempts to understand our current President are based on observations. Understanding how he viewed the world in the past, based on his actions in his private life and his business life, should provide us insights on how he views the world now, and in the future, and what would motivate his policies. That will allow us to predict how we can expect him to react to upcoming economic and political crises.
If you think that my analyses reflect negatively on him, then you must, like me, disagree with the policies. If, on the other hand, you agree with those policies and with the prior conduct that underlies those policies, then my analyses are reinforcements of your support for him. Value judgements on his world views and policies are left up to each of you, as it should be in our system.
Because I oppose many of his policies, it does not define me as “hating” him, in as much as those who support those policies do not necessarily “love” him or would hold him up as a role model for their grandchildren.
It is true that I find many of those policies antithetical to the “American Experiment”.
I do not believe in the “unitary presidency”, but perhaps you do. Maybe you believe that the American system of 3 co-equal branches of government is antiquated and unworkable, that a strong Chief Executive is the only way to avoid the partisanship of the Congress, and that the Federal Courts, made up of unelected, appointed judges should stay out of politics and that their actions hobble the President’s ability to run the country. If that is how you view the rebuilding of the American political system, then you probably support the actions of Mr. Trump because you believe that the current system is bloated, ineffectual and dangerous.
Here is my understanding of how our Founding Fathers viewed the American Experiment.
The Framers of the US Constitution reacted to what they saw as the three major problems with English Government, the Royals, the Lords, and the Anglican Church.
They believed that a monarch, unelected and ordained for life, with his station inherited without judgement of merit was improper. They believed that there should be an executive whose power was regulated and restricted, and that the Executive need be chosen by the Citizenry on a rotating basis.
They were also distrustful of power vested in the landed, wealthy aristocracy. They believed that “gentleman farmers” should be the ones trusted to run the country, not because they had inherited their positions, but because they were chosen based on their intellect, character, and ability to govern.
They believed that the Anglican Church, seated in power next to the throne, with guaranteed representation in the Parliament, and entrusted with the authority to make ethical and moral decisions for the country was also improper.
The claims we hear today that this country was founded as a “Judeo-Christian” country are simply wrong. Figures like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison, embraced Deism, a philosophy centered on the belief that there is a supreme being who created the universe, but who does not intervene in human affairs. They rejected what they saw as mythology in Christianity involving Jesus, who they praised as a moralist and ethicist. They emphasized reason and natural laws over religious dogma.
There is no mention of God in the Constutuion, and the First Amendment prohibits the installation of any analogy to the British Anglican Church.
The Constitution was, therefore, specifically constructed to restrict the power of the Church, the monied, and the Presidency.
Article I established the Congress, giving them the sole authority to enact laws, specify funding and confirm appointments. As they are mentioned first, it appears that the Framers believed them to be the predominant component of the government. Their authority is restricted by the Supreme Court which has the ability to determine whether the laws created are actually allowed under the Constitution.
Article II then provides for an administrative entity who is tasked with executing the laws of the Congress. That office is also given the sole right of conducting foreign affairs, save for the ability to declare war, which must be done by the Congress.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Executive does not have the right to a line-item veto, nor the right to taxation. The clear intent is that the rights of the Executive need to be restricted to the determination of how to implement the laws passed by the Congress within the bounds of the funds appropriated for those programs.
The Federal Courts are empowered with determining for the Executive, what the Supreme Court does for the Congress – determining if the actions of the Executive are consistent with the rights specifically bestowed upon him/her in the Constitution. They are appointed rather than elected with the intention of keeping them outside partisan pressures.
Now, you may disagree with that structure. You may support the current actions of the congress, appropriating funds for programs, but not determining how those funds should be allotted, leaving that authority to the President for the first time.
You may support the Presidential declaration of “emergencies”, simply to provide legal cover for his actions including imposing tariffs, thereby creating a form of taxation and a source of revenue outside the clearly demarcated rights given to Congress.
You may support the argument that the Courts, being unelected, should have no ability to determine what the Executive chooses to do, or whether their actions fall within the laws voted for by the Congress.
Perhaps, in your opinion, it is time to reevaluate the structure of the American Constitutional System. I do not. I remain hopeful that we can return to the intended structure of the American Experiment. For if we extend the power of the Presidency to supersede that of the other two branches, that will be true not only in this time of Mr. Trump, but also into the future regardless of who is elected and what their intensions might be.