The Presidents: Madmen or Messiahs?

 Imagine an America where you rarely see the President on TV because the duties of the office don't require him or her to frequently be in the national spotlight.

This is exactly what our founders intended for the non-descript office.

In fact, Alexis De Tocqueville observed "the citizens had little or no contact with the federal government. It didn't tax them, regulate their businesses, tell them whether and how they could be armed, or how they must conduct their private lives."

The president's power is "temporary, limited, and subordinate," Tocqueville wrote. He has "little wealth, and little glory to share among his friends; and his influence in the state is too small for the success or the ruin of a faction to depend up his elevation to power.... The influence which the President exercises on public business is no doubt feeble and indirect."

(De Tocqueville was a French political thinker and historian. The first volume of Democracy in America, published in 1835, received great acclaim. The second volume followed in 1840.)

Most Americans don't realize that before our current Constitution, the united States were governed under the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation was in place during and after the American Revolution. The new nation was formed on July 4, 1776, but its government (called "the United States in Congress assembled") operated until 1781 without a written constitution.

The Articles were written in 1776 and 1777 and adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777 after a year of debate. In practice, the unratified Articles were used by the members of Congress as the unofficial system of government until it became law by final ratification on March 1, 1781.

Here's how the Founders laid out the office of the President in the Articles:

Article 9 directed Congress to choose one from its numbers to be presiding officer (to be chosen for one year, and with a service limit of one year out of three). This person, often referred to as "President," had a role much akin to the Speaker of the House or the House of Representatives under the current Constitution. (No vain, expensive presidential campaigns and annoying ads!)

The articles were hotly debated. The critical issue, however, was whether “sovereignty” (ultimate human political authority) would be located in the central government (Congress, for the Articles had neither an executive nor a judicial branch) or in each state government.

The debates in Congress decided that “sovereignty” would remain in the state governments—not the central or national government.
 

In the beginning, the smaller, weaker central government (Congress) had only those powers expressly delegated to it by the states. Now, that order is tyrannically reversed!

Article II said, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”  Source: Articles at American Vision

Under the Articles of Confederation:

• The central government had no power to demand taxes and punish citizens for non-compliance.

• It had no power to create a Federal Reserve, nor willy-nilly coin or print its own money. (The Articles allowed the central government to regulate weights and measures among the States.) Its daily operations and programs were dependent upon income from the States; thereby, growth and spending were checked.

• No power over foreign and interstate commerce was granted to the central government, which meant it could not impose sanctions on international trade and slowly choke the American dream of ownership and entrepreneurship.

• Under the Articles, there was no standing army...no billions upon billions to fund the American war machine and its meddling interventionism and imperialistic nation building around the world. Each state maintained a militia that could be called upon in a national emergency. (The subsequent Constitution called for a standing navy that operated only defensively. An army could be raised for war, but only for two years.)

• The Presidency was primarily a ceremonial office. There was no global idol declaring illegal wars, stealing from taxpayers for pet projects, cutting back-door deals, and removing individual liberties in the name of the benevolent State.

• The Articles did call for a Congress of rotating representatives, sent and strictly stipended by the States for a limited time (no career politicians)...no "in your face", costly campaigns for office.

• Under our original Confederacy, no federal court system of slick, appointed-for-life judges existed. This prevented deep pockets and eager egos from making new laws rather than interpreting existing ones.

Critics of the Articles of Confederation eventually worked to replace them with a new Constitution that radically empowered the central government (and the men who were fortunate enough to be at its helm).

(To learn more about the Articles of Confederation, and how they were hi-jacked from the American people, please read my series: "Back to the Constitution? Why Stop There?" )

A handful of nationalistic, power-driven men with personal agendas convinced a majority of the States that our new, central government structure would have built-in separation of powers--what they deemed as sufficient "checks and balances" between our three branches of national government.

According to this myth, also known as the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, distributing the powers of a government among several branches prevents the undue concentration of power in any single branch.

As the Encyclopedia Britannica explains:

[The Separation of Powers is the] division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation limits the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering of laws. The concept received its first modern formulation in the work of Baron de Montesquieu, who declared it the best way to safeguard liberty; he influenced the framers of the Constitution of the United States, who in turn influenced the writers of 19th- and 20th-century constitutions.

In theory, a democratically elected president is merely the highest-ranking official in one of three or more coequal branches of government, the executive branch.

In reality, in any monopolistic state with a presidential system, the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp. Real world experience has demonstrated that over time, the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature.

In theory, the coequal branches of government provide "checks and balances" upon each other, preventing them from ganging up upon the individual citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

In reality, because the executive is the branch that has been delegated the power to "execute" policy (pun intended), it invariably usurps any and all powers delegated to the other branches of a monopolistic state.

Real world experience has shown that "limited government" inevitably morphs into unlimited government, and that the executive is always the branch that winds up monopolizing that limitless power. It makes no difference whether the executive was popularly elected, self-appointed, or hereditary.

Baron de Montesquieu was dead right when he noted that there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates or if the power of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

James Madison was dead right when he noted that the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Montesquieu and Madison unfortunately, were dead wrong about how far mankind would have to go to prevent the uniting and accumulation of all powers in the same hands. Montesquieu and Madison earnestly believed that establishing constitutional republics with tripartite divisions of powers would be sufficient.

The harsh reality is that the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, within the context of a monopolistic state, is a contradiction in terms.

The harsh reality is that as long as a nation is ruled by a conventional monopolistic state rather than Private Defense Agencies, any allegedly "separate and independent branches" of government will always perceive themselves as integral parts of the same government, the one government, the only government within any given jurisdiction.

No matter how one attempts to divide a monopolistic state into "branches" the reality is that all such "branches" live off the same "tax revenues," better known as protection money, extracted by force from "taxpayers," better known as victims of extortion.

The Separation of Powers was supposed to be the primary firewall between constitutional republicanism and democracy. Tragically it has proven to be inadequate. Given enough time, it burns right through.

Constitutional republicanism is unquestionably superior to democracy. Unfortunately, that's just not good enough. Constitutional republicanism, given enough time, degenerates into democracy, aka elective dictatorship (My question: Aren't we already there?)

Democracy meanwhile, takes no time at all to degenerate into dictatorship. That's because democracy isn't separated from dictatorship by any firewalls whatsoever. That's because democracy is a form of dictatorship. It always was, and it always will be.

As long as a government, any government, wields a legal monopoly in the use of brute force within a given territorial jurisdiction, that government's powers can never really be separate. The Myths of Checks and Balances by Bevin Chu

 Even the Constitution's architects never conceived of the president as the man in charge of national destiny.  Gene Healy, author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power, notes:

The constitutional office they designed gave the president an important role, but he'd have "no particle of spiritual jurisdiction," the 69th essay of The Federalist Papers tells us. In Federalist No. 48, James Madison assured Americans that under the proposed Constitution the "executive magistracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and the duration of its powers."

Regardless of the lofty rhetoric, our new Constitution expanded the office's influence and power. It lays out thirteen specific powers that are granted to the President:

Commander in Chief of Armed Forces (remember, this does not give him the ability to declare war, only Congress can do that; it does allow him to commit troops to military actions)

Make treaties with other nations, subject to confirmation by a 2/3’s vote of the U.S. Senate

Nominate foreign ambassadors, subject to confirmation by a simple majority of the Senate

Nominate federal judges, subject to confirmation by a simple majority of the Senate

Receive ambassadors of other nations

May grant pardons for federal crimes (excepts impeachments)

Present to Congress “from time to time” information on the State of the Union

Convene both Houses of Congress on extraordinary occasions

Adjourn Congress if both the House and the Senate cannot agree on adjournment

Nominate officials as provided for by Congress (when new posts are created because Congress creates a new department or agency, the president is allowed to name the head of that post) subject to confirmation by a simple majority of the Senate

Fill administrative vacancies during Congressional recesses

Recommend legislation to Congress

Veto legislation, which could be overridden by a 2/3’s vote of both Houses of Congress

Remember, the Framers of the Articles of Confederation, our original constitution, only wanted a figurehead (Continental delegates insisted that he have no other title but Mr. President) and a Congress that was financially dependent upon each sovereign State's cooperation; therefore, heeding their peers--citizen legislators (not career politicians)--who sacrificed to serve for a limited time was paramount!

Today, we still refer to the executive in Washington as "Mr. President", but he's also hailed as the most important man in the world! 

How did we go from a reticent constitutional officer to the modern commander in chief, a figure who continually shifts back and forth between gushing empathy and military bluster, often within the same speech? As Tony Soprano might have put it, whatever happened to Calvin Coolidge, the strong, silent type?

There is no single explanation for the presidency's growth. New communication technologies such as radio and television played a role, as did growing material progress, which made Americans less willing to suffer inconveniences and more receptive to the belief that public problems could be solved with collective action.

Yet in each key period of the presidency's growth, we see a familiar pattern: expansionist ideology meeting practical opportunity in the form of successive national crises.

The most astute among the Progressives recognized that, given the American public's congenital resistance to centralized rule, a sustained atmosphere of crisis would be necessary to sell the expansion of White House power. Two world wars and one Great Depression did the trick nicely.

Teddy Roosevelt's activist, celebrity presidency heralded the coming of a new sort of chief executive, one who would evermore be the center of national attention, the motive force behind American government. With his expanded power, Roosevelt busted trusts, carried a big stick throughout the Americas with a newly imperial U.S. Navy, and issued nearly as many executive orders as all of his predecessors combined.

Woodrow Wilson then proved what Progressives had long hypothesized: that soaring rhetoric combined with the panicked atmosphere of war could concentrate massive social power in the hands of one person. Over the course of his presidency he helped create the Federal Reserve, nationalized railroads, and used the Espionage and Sedition Acts (along with more than 150,000 vigilantes) to carry out the most brutal campaign against dissent in U.S. history.

But it took FDR to eliminate the last remaining vestiges of the modest presidency. Roosevelt used Wilson's Trading With the Enemy Act to shut down all U.S. banks in 1933, grabbed the power to approve or prescribe wages and prices for all trades and industries, and authorized the FBI to spy on suspected subversives.


He changed the Supreme Court from a bulwark against presidential overreach to an enabler. By the end of his 12-year reign, FDR had firmly established the president as national protector and nurturer, one whose performance would be judged in terms of what political scientist Theodore Lowi has identified as the modern test of executive legitimacy: "service delivery."

In his 11th State of the Union address, FDR conjured up a second Bill of Rights, one whose guarantees would include "a useful and renumerative job" and the "right of every farmer to…a decent living." Depression-era economic controls and war-driven centralization had turned the American system of government, in Lowi's words, into "an inverted pyramid, with everything coming to rest on a presidential pinpoint.

Although Americans finally recovered their native skepticism toward power after Vietnam, Watergate, and the revelations of the Church committee, we never reduced our demands on the executive branch.

The lesson we seemed to have learned from the legacy of abuses was to trust less, ask more. In 1998, the Pew Research Center noted that "public desire for government services and activism has remained nearly steady over the past 30 years."

Two years later, a report on a survey by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government put it pithily: "Americans distrust government, but want it to do more".

The Bush administration's extra-constitutional innovations in response to the 9/11 attacks are by now all too familiar.

On October 17, 2006, the same day he signed the Military Commissions Act denying centuries-old habeas corpus rights to "enemy combatants," the president also signed a defense authorization bill that contained gaping new exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the federal law that restricts the president's power to use the standing army to enforce order at home.

The new exceptions to the act gave the president power to use U.S. armed forces to "restore public order and enforce the laws" when confronted with "natural disasters," "public health emergencies," and "other…incidents" — a catchall phrase that radically expands the president's ability to use troops against his own citizens.

Under it, the president can, if he chooses, fight a federal War on Hurricanes, declaring himself supreme military commander in any state where he thinks conditions warrant it. That's the kind of executive power grab that happens when the public demands that the president protect Americans from the hazards of cyclical bad weather." The Cult of the American Presidency

 Healy concludes as we swagger under the spell of a President (Obama) whose campaign carried ominous, god-like overtones--even from children lauding his praises:

"This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as national guardian and spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous it goes virtually unnoticed.

Americans, left, right, and other, think of the "commander in chief" as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes. And with great responsibility comes great power.

It's difficult for 21st-century Americans to imagine things any other way. The United States appears stuck with an imperial presidency, an office that concentrates enormous power in the hands of whichever professional politician manages to claw his way to the top. Americans appear deeply ambivalent about the results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot.

So I ask, "Have our Presidents been madmen or messiahs"? The answer is both.

But WE, THE PEOPLE, in not maintaining vigilance over our liberties, allowed a group of men to construct behind closed doors a new constitution for this country that gave more power to the office of the presidency and recklessly presumed a piece of paper would prevent expansion and abuse of power at a national level.

WE, THE PEOPLE, in the face of growing control and abuse, did nothing to wrest that power from the hands of the ruling class. WE allowed the creation of the madmen and messiahs, fed them as they grew, and worshiped at their feet!

However, if we courageously lead our country back to the preeminent maxims of protecting inalienable rights, and return civil authority to the States to govern only what is needful according to the distinct consciences of their communities, then the office of the Presidency of the united States will once again be noble...a civil post not occupied by madmen and messiahs, but fettered magistrates.

Schools all across America are celebrating Presidents' Month; but the hordes of government-indoctrinated children will never learn that Abraham Lincoln was the consummate constitutional usurper and the "father" of abusive, centralized  power.

What were you taught about Lincoln while you made that flimsy top hat from black construction paper or struggled to memorize the Gettysburg Address? Years later, what do you still believe about the man consistently voted as the most popular and beloved President in American history?

A deeper search into history reveals he wasn't as honest as his admirers claim, and he set the office of the presidency and the country on a distressing course we have yet to reverse. In reality, the man who supposedly "freed the slaves" enslaved an entire nation!

In my next post, we'll be the historically honest ones who tell the truth in the LINCOLN LEGACY!

*During the American Revolution, delegates to the Continental Congress were limited to three one-year terms over a period of six years under the Articles of Confederation. But, when Rhode Island delegates reached the three-year limit, they refused to leave office. After much heated debate, Congress finally dropped the issue and the Rhode Islanders remained."

"The founding fathers were divided over the principle of "rotation in office," as congressional term limits were then called. Jefferson and Washington favored it; Madison and Hamilton opposed it. Largely because of the unpleasant experience with the Rhode Islanders in the Continental Congress, "rotation in office" never made it into the Constitution.

"For the first 80 years of our country, however, few members of Congress served more than two terms. But after the Civil War, this changed. Congress organized permanent committees, which were chaired by the members with the most seniority. From then on, the longer a senator or representative served in Congress, the more powerful he or she became. Many members of Congress started serving long careers.

"Ironically, the first successful federal term limits were not aimed at career politicians in Congress. They were directed at the president. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt had managed to get elected to four terms. After World War II, a Republican Congress passed, and three-fourths of the states ratified, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This placed a two-term limit on the president. Attempts to impose term limits on Congress failed at this time." Constitutional Rights Foundation