The Presidents Right To Interpret The Constitution
In the Constitution of the United States you will find listed the range of powers of the President of the United States. The sphere of influence of the President is a mere four years after which time he/she is once more directly accountable to the people. The President is limited to two terms in office in case the fondness of the People grow to much for him/her and their loyalty gives birth to a tyrant as they disregard his/her shortcomings.
The Presidents power is also limited in his/her ability according to the Constitution to intervene within the borders of a state. The intervention in that case is at the behest of Congress, not necessary the sitting Congress and can be to enforce civil rights, interstate or international trade rules, or other selected instances. Even then due consideration should be given to the state governments to enforce the rules in their own borders before resorting to federal enforcement. Should the state still dispute the intervention as unconstitutional and Congress and the President insist the action is Constitutional then the Supreme Court should weigh in and their decision held to by all at that time. Even then at a later time after elections have been held in all elected positions the dispute may be renewed and re-decided. This later allows the people to weigh in by voting for those backing the position they the people prefer or are willing to concede and allows the Supreme Court to overcome any error they might have made previously.
The President as the executive power of the federal government has the power to enforce or not to enforce the legislative actions of Congress and the judicial decisions of the federal Courts. The President has no power to legislate which is reserved to Congress or to judge which is reserved to the Supreme Court but he/she does have power to giver orders to the executive branch including the military as long as those orders are not in violation of the Constitution. The President can choose to not enforce legislation or judicial orders that he/she personally feel are a violation of the Constitution because he/she took an oath to do just that. Should the other two branches disagree with The President on what the Constitution means in the case and Congress has overcome a presidential veto The President should wash his/her hands of the affair and reluctantly agree to enforce their interpretation and allow the voters to weigh in at a later date before challenging it again.
If you read the Federalist papers #78 you will see that what I wrote about the federal government agrees with what Alexander Hamilton also wrote when urging the support of the Constitution. So it is clear that on the federal level no constitutional issue should be decided without the concurrence of at least two of the three branches of government thus maintaining the balance of power. If in addition we follow the ideals of Abraham Lincoln, who declared “That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend;…”, then it becomes clear that the federal government should not intervene within a states borders unless two branches and the state agree or all three branches of the federal government agree.
At this time the President enforces the laws of Congress and the decisions of The Supreme Court automatically claiming to be upholding the Rule of Law. The claim is false as he is committing perjury by violating his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We as the people of the United States have to demand that our President uphold his constitutional oath and defy the Supreme Court or Congress, but not both; once he has exercised his right to veto the later‘s legislation.
The Presidents power is also limited in his/her ability according to the Constitution to intervene within the borders of a state. The intervention in that case is at the behest of Congress, not necessary the sitting Congress and can be to enforce civil rights, interstate or international trade rules, or other selected instances. Even then due consideration should be given to the state governments to enforce the rules in their own borders before resorting to federal enforcement. Should the state still dispute the intervention as unconstitutional and Congress and the President insist the action is Constitutional then the Supreme Court should weigh in and their decision held to by all at that time. Even then at a later time after elections have been held in all elected positions the dispute may be renewed and re-decided. This later allows the people to weigh in by voting for those backing the position they the people prefer or are willing to concede and allows the Supreme Court to overcome any error they might have made previously.
The President as the executive power of the federal government has the power to enforce or not to enforce the legislative actions of Congress and the judicial decisions of the federal Courts. The President has no power to legislate which is reserved to Congress or to judge which is reserved to the Supreme Court but he/she does have power to giver orders to the executive branch including the military as long as those orders are not in violation of the Constitution. The President can choose to not enforce legislation or judicial orders that he/she personally feel are a violation of the Constitution because he/she took an oath to do just that. Should the other two branches disagree with The President on what the Constitution means in the case and Congress has overcome a presidential veto The President should wash his/her hands of the affair and reluctantly agree to enforce their interpretation and allow the voters to weigh in at a later date before challenging it again.
If you read the Federalist papers #78 you will see that what I wrote about the federal government agrees with what Alexander Hamilton also wrote when urging the support of the Constitution. So it is clear that on the federal level no constitutional issue should be decided without the concurrence of at least two of the three branches of government thus maintaining the balance of power. If in addition we follow the ideals of Abraham Lincoln, who declared “That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend;…”, then it becomes clear that the federal government should not intervene within a states borders unless two branches and the state agree or all three branches of the federal government agree.
At this time the President enforces the laws of Congress and the decisions of The Supreme Court automatically claiming to be upholding the Rule of Law. The claim is false as he is committing perjury by violating his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We as the people of the United States have to demand that our President uphold his constitutional oath and defy the Supreme Court or Congress, but not both; once he has exercised his right to veto the later‘s legislation.
posted by Kerwin | 11:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home