Told you so?
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1996 <1/6>

      Of course I did. Yesterday the last of the problems with the shutdown of 19% of the government was solved. The employees are back at work but they can not do anything. Their departments have no spending authority as required by the Constitution.
      Yes, back in December 1994, I wrote about the old zero funding ploy. I said back then, if the president does not like the reduction in a department he can veto the reduction and zero fund the entire department. That it took so long to become obvious to the journalism majors is not surprising.
      It is not at though it is complicated. If Bill Clinton does not like the downsizing of the EPA he need only veto that bill. In doing so he has shut down the EPA in its entirety.
      The Constitution creates our government such that Congress is supreme despite the tendency to give the president supremacy this century. The rule is simple. The President can veto Congress and Congress can override a veto. The President can do nothing on his own in spending money or doing much of anything internal to the country.
      Anyone who does not like it, change the constitution. But in doing so remember, in giving any kind of supreme power to a president is in fact giving that power to his political party. In 1932 Germany gave political power to a political party. History indicates that was not a good idea.
      The desire for a strong central leader was what brought down Germany. A president or fuehrer with a free reign is exactly what we do not want. It is the antithesis, not only of our form of government, but of liberty.
      You may not like what is going on in Washington but then did you vote and who for and why? Whatever is going on is the result of the form of government we live under. And if you do not like it, there is always the amendment process.
      But should "common sense" over ride the Constitution? Should necessity give powers to individuals be they president or not? And, if so, which individual?
      It seems obvious that that person should be the president as an artifact of our system and our legacy of a century of serious war. On one hand, yes, the person with that power should be our current warlord. On the other hand, without war, that figurehead is superfluous. Without an enemy there is no call to rallying around a president.
      But here the genius and insight of those who created our constitution and thus our country is never better vindicated. Today we have a lowly governor from either the left or right armpit of the country, who should be the least interested in a strong presidency. Yet he is defending the power of the presidency. Although that comes from political parties that did not exist and are not recognized in our Constitution there is the tendency to power requiring checks and balances in all of its naked infamy.
      Thus our Constitution puts the power of the Congress ahead of both the President and ahead of the Supreme Court. But let us go further into the original concept. The president was to be elected by the electoral college. The Senators were to be elected by the state government bodies. Only the Representatives were to be elected by the people. And only the Representatives, the House, was given the power to initiate spending bills.
      It is hardly surprising that the line of succession to the presidency is first the vice president and then the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich folks, read it and weep. And why not? The ultimate power in this country is in the people. The only direct election by the people were to be the President, vice-President and members of the House of Representatives.
      Should we take a dislike to this form of government we can change it. Should the electoral process fail to meet our needs we can always use violent revolution. There is nothing evil about that. The only historic approbrium to revolution is to losing the revolution.
      And here we are at the fundment of our constitution. The House is refusing to spend money where it is the only authority to spend money. It is difficult to say they always want it their way when the Constitution says it is only their way when money is spent. The President does not agree, fine. The President has no legal authority to do anything but execute the laws he signs. That is the constitution.
      If you do not like the idea that words on paper should govern everything, just what would you suggest be used in their place? If you think your personal approach is right then please put it in writing so all of us can comment upon it.
      If that was not sarcastic enough try it this way. If you do not like the government system in the Constitution, then propose your own. Until then, live with what is happening without complaining about what you do not understand.