http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2008/11/112008.html
The Constitution of the Unites States is arguably the most important document in the history of our nation, yet the fact remains: Its contents have not been altered in approximately 224 years. How can a document conceived that long ago stand the test of time and still dictate a successful government that can face and succeed against the numerous challenges that exit in society today? The Framers created the Constitution as a living document that could be altered at any point. Therefore, when looking at Article II and the Executive Branch of our government, there exists many issues that I believe should be altered or elaborated upon.
In Article I, Section I, the regulation of terms is outlined in clause 1. While I don't particularly agree with a four year term, it does serve as an ample time to demonstrate progress in achieving the goals which the executive promises the citizens during their campaign trail. I personally believe that terms should be longer so that the president has not only ample time to demonstrate progress, but achieve some of the major goals that they have set forth.
Clauses 2 and 3 contain, arguably, the most controversial topic in the Constitution itself: the election of an executive through appointed electors, more commonly referred to as the Electoral College. Personally, I believe that the electoral college defies the ideals of democracy. It takes the ability to select a President out of the hands of the citizens and into the hands of Electors who can chose to either vote with the citizens or against them, for their best interest. The Framers created this provision to help protect the citizens from those uneducated voters, establishing a middle-man between the citizens and the appointed executive. While it is important to have a "safety net," it is also important for the people to have a direct say in who is their President. A solution could be to have elections in which the percentage of the votes that a candidate receives is the percentage of electoral votes they receive: proportionality rule. However if the electors feel that a differing percentage should be given to a candidate, the state House of Representatives should approve this change.
The final problem I have in Section 1 is the age and requirements for being a President. Why must a presidential candidate live in the United States for fourteen years and be 35 years old and a naturalized born citizen? Is it not possible for a younger candidate or an immigrant to govern the country as well as some of our leaders? I believe that other individuals would bring a fresh perspective of how the presidency and the United States is viewed from outside the country. While I believe that it is important to be a US citizen, I don't think being born in another country makes someone less qualified. As far as living in the United States for 14 years, it really seems like they just came up with that number with no justification.
Section II outlines the duties and responsibilities of the President. Clause 1 states that the President is commander in chief of the Army and the Navy. If this is the case what experience does the President have in controlling these bodies if they have not served time in the military. I believe that a presidential candidate should have served at least 2 years within the military in order to be qualified. This provides an individual enough time to understand how the instrument of government works without becoming corrupted by the institution. It's impossible to understand the functions of the Army and Navy without serving.
In the same clause, the President has the ability to obtain the opinion of the head of major executive departments. I believe that in moments of national crisis, or in the process of making an important decision this must be not an option but a necessity. John F. Kennedy, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, created ExCom to gain the opinions and thoughts of those who he believed would come up with the best solution to the problem at hand. Finally, I would eliminate the ability of the President to grant pardons and reprieves. I do not believe that the president should have the power to determine who should be essentially forgiven for their wrongdoings. I could very easily see it being used as harborer of corruption and controversy as demonstrated in the pardon of Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford. The power should be vested, at the least, in the Senate and should have to be approved by a 2/3 majority.
Section 3 outlines the responsibilities of the President as it pertains to the interaction between the executive and legislative branches of government. I believe that the President should have the power to create legislation to submit to Congress. The system of checks and balances makes it difficult for a President to push through any legislation. While this would create a blending of the executive and legislative branches, the legislation will have the final say in whether the bill will pass and the President would not be able to pass any legislation. This would provide the power to Congress while still giving the executive an opportunity to push forth their agenda as they see fit.
Lastly, Section 4 dictates the provisions under which the President shall be impeached. Now, bribery and treason I feel are impeachable offenses but the final part, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is incredibly vague and can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. I believe limiting impeachment to bribery, treason, and any form of fraud, embezzlement, or other felony crimes would help eliminate any interpretation issues.
When the Framers were writing the Constitution, they understood throughly that there was no way they could foresee every possible circumstance that would arise. The Constitution, as it stands, has stood the test of time and will continue to create the ultimate law of the land. Let it be known, however, that it could be improved upon. And now for your Constitutional viewing pleasure:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Republicans 2: The New Batch | ||||
| ||||
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-6-2011/republicans-2--the-new-batch
No comments:
Post a Comment