Wiston Papers

The President is important, but we really need to worry about Congress

Millions of Americans will vote November 06 to elect officials at the local, state and national levels.  Much media attention has been on the presidential contest between the Democrat incumbent Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

The media narrative is about which man is best prepared to revive our anemic economy, spur business growth and hiring, control runaway health costs, assure Social Security solvency, guarantee Medicare access for the sick and elderly, and protect national security at home and abroad.  These are legitimate concerns.  But their solution does not reside in the White House alone.

More that 220 years ago American political leaders John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison penned a series of essays on the state of our young nation and urged constitutional reforms they believed were  needed to protect a fragile democracy.

Their words are as important today as they were two centuries ago.

In Federalist No. 50 published February 05, 1788 the earnest argument was posed for the clear separation of powers among the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.  Jay, Hamilton and Madison were prescient in recognizing that the greatest domestic danger came not from a strong President, but rather from an expansionist Congress that would inevitably seek to encroach on the discrete powers of the chief executive as well as the courts.

That is precisely what has happened and why today’s voters should pay particular attention to whom they choose to send to the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.  

Our founding fathers were most fearful of a legislature that might mirror the British House of Lords.  A chamber occupied by hereditary peers who were accountable to no one but their own interests and thus could meddle in domestic affairs with impunity.

Of equal concern to Jay, Hamilton and Madison was the degree of judicial and executive powers available to the Congress despite the purported separation of judicial and executive functions assigned to the other two branches of government.

That danger is as great today as in 1788.   Here’s why.

The next president will have to make  difficult economic decisions.  But his proposals will be modified by Congress.  All bills dealing with money originate in the House after which they are forwarded to the Senate. The President’s ideas will be reconstituted by 435 men and women on Capitol Hill who will have one eye firmly on chiseling away at the budget until it resembles an edifice that will be more conducive to their reelection to congress than to the welfare of the republic.  

Any discussion led by either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney next year on balancing the budget and reducing the national debt  also will be held hostage to political demands instead of responding to sound fiduciary principles.

The next president will likewise be subjected to protracted battles for confirmation of justices he wants for the federal courts--especially any Supreme Court nominees he may be called upon to appoint.   And cabinet replacements will undergo similar scrutiny before they are finally appointed.

President Obama and Governor Romney may talk tough regarding their role as Commander-in-Chief, but neither man can guarantee international treaties without the consent of the Senate.

Not only does the Congress have these executive powers, but it exerts influence on the judiciary through the confirmation process of justices as well as the opportunity to revisit laws that the Supreme Court may find unconstitutional.  We have seen this in legislation that specifies whether federal funding can be used for abortions, addresses First Amendment issues of hate speech, obscenity, religious freedom, as well as a score of civil rights issues ranging from rights for gays, immigrants and prisoners.  Rest assured that those in Congress unhappy with recent Supreme Court rulings will try to enact similar laws.

Congress is the potentially most tyrannical branch of our American government.  It’s tentacles have reached far into the executive and judicial spheres.  It is persuaded by political passion and partisan obstinance--in part due to perceived constituent pressure, which may be good; in part due to the desire to remain in office, which is bad.

As a result we have too many members on Capitol Hill who have stayed in office too long.  They have traded public service for perpetuity and self-aggrandizement.  They are more interested in largesse and longevity than in legitimate legislation.  They have put narrow self-serving concerns ahead of greater national needs.  The average length of service for members of Congress is ten years---five terms in the House and two in the Senate.  The leaders have served much longer.

For these reasons we need to critically evaluate the men and women who say they are running for office to improve our lives and the welfare of the republic.  

In all of the Federalist papers, Jay, Hamilton and Madison reminded us that the power of America lies with its citizens--you and me.  Do we still demand that our Congressional Representatives work for us? Do we vote for the persons best qualified to look out for our interests?  Or have we succumbed to apathy, scepticism, and simply cast our votes every election cycle for the familiar name on the ballot?  The latter, unfortunately, too often is the case.

Yes, who we choose for our next president is important.  More important is who we send to Congress.

My conclusion:  we as a nation really can do better.

Steve Coon

October 26, 2012