HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 27, 2003 Dick Gephardt wants to fix the wrongs of the world. He is going to start with the Supreme Court. Gephardt has actually come out and said that if he were king, I mean president, and the Supreme Court made a ruling that he objected to that he would overrule it? Really? Before I go any further, let me quote him. On Sunday June 22, 2003 at a Rainbow Coalition event in Chicago, Dick Gephardt said, “When [sic] I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." I have to remember to add this to my list of reasons why I fear the modern Democratic Party: they want to ignore the constitution. If I were power hungry, I’d want to ditch the Supremes too. Just like Diana Ross. This statement is just plain offensive and forty years ago would have ended his political career. But since we are living in these incredibly wacky times, will anyone even notice how Dick is stating his desire to undermine the basic precepts that our government is founded upon? Everyone who watches the ABC News can tell you that we have to have separation of church and state. But does anyone know about the separation of powers that are built into the constitution? Dick Gephardt is hoping that you missed school that day. As a reminder, this is how it was intended to work. We have three, but equal branches, in our government. They are the Executive (president), Legislative (house and senate), and Judicial (Supreme Court). The executive branch is entrusted to lead the nation in diplomacy, domestic issues, and accept or reject proposals from the congress. The legislators are there to represent our concerns, to give legitimacy to all actions purposed by the president, and to propose new laws. The Judicial branch is there to analyze and interpret laws and cases from the lower courts that are being appealed Each of the powers has the authority to limit the power of the braches. This is a good thing. The President doesn’t get to declare that there won’t be any more elections because congress would have to approve it, and the Supreme Court has to determine if it were constitutional. Congress, which arguably has the most influence over the other two branches, is limited by the constitution, by the supreme courts judgment of constitutionality of new laws, and by the president ratifying there bills. Granted there are ways that they can over throw a presidential veto, but we’ll keep this simple. The judges don’t get to make up laws as they go because the laws need to be created in congress. What are executive orders and why should you care? Typically, these orders are for taking care of the tedious aspects of running the country. Mostly they address for operational issues of federal agencies. The characteristic that makes them interesting is they become law after 30 days, if unchallenged and completely bypass the Judicial and Legislative branches. There are a couple of ways to recall an executive order: overturned by incoming presidents; congress could pass a law that alters the order; or the Supreme Court could declare the order unconstitutional. This isn’t a perfect system. That is a granted. But the influence of each branch over the others is called check and balances. For this system to work, those checks and balances need to be kept in place and must not be undermined by the other powers. So, when Dick Gephardt says that he would over-rule the supreme court if he were president he is completely over estimating the power of that office, at the least. Or, as it is fair to assume of a lifelong politician, he knows what the powers are “supposed to be” and doesn’t care. Frankly, that is a frightening prospect. If a president were to override the Supreme Court, it might fit the “letter” of the law, but certainly not the “intent” of the law. It would be a gross abuse of power. I am making such a big deal out of this because it is not being addressed by the mass media. But can you imagine if President Bush made such a statement. Gephardt is a runner for the democratic nomination. Shouldn’t we scrutinize everything that he says a seriously as if President Bush said it? Instead, Gephardt won’t have to answer for his statement. Remember back in December when Trent Lott said of Strom Thurmond, “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." He was alluding to Thurmond’s stance on the Civil Right Act. Never mind that he apologized, but it was too late. The left loving media dogs smelled blood and were ready to bring him down. I don’t like Lott’s comments. But I don’t think that it brands him as someone who can’t be Senate Majority leader. He expressed an opinion. How dangerous? Gephardt was talking at a political fundraiser. So does his comment constitute a campaign promise? Let me translate, he is promising to use the Presidency to displace the Supreme Court on any decision that he, personally, doesn’t like. He is stating publicly that he will abuse his authority WHEN he is president. So much for the separation of governmental powers and checks and balances. I would love to see 60 Minutes, or Peter Jennings, or CNN, or even The View to bring him to task on this. They will just go on glibly pondering where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are, embracing Hillary’s book, or groaning over the economy. Trent Lott made a target out of himself and race based special interest groups made him pay. The so-called Fourth estate was complicit in him demise. But keep this in mind, for the media and the left, commenting on race is always taboo in any way, shape, or form. You violate it and you pay the price. But if you threaten to impose governmental oppression as a campaign promise then it is quietly accepted. This will never change until conscientious taxpayers become outraged and start holding the Gephardts of the world accountable for their behavior. To close on a bright note, Moveon.org this week posted their poll results. Only 2.4 percent of the respondents would vote for Gephardt. ------------ About the author: Edward Lyell is politically active in New Mexico and has been a small business owner and currently works as professional counselor. Once a great Democrat, he became another one of the disenfranchised during the Clinton presidency. He categorizes himself as a firm believer in Objectivism, free trade, and the Constitution. Email Edward Lyell: Edsterl@aol.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
