|
The US constitution creates a federal republic. As such, the People have no representation in the federal government, only the states. As written, the People have no voice in selecting the federal government except for the House of Representatives, which is the weakest branch of government(*) and the one designed to have the fastest turn-over. The People do not actually elect the President; technically, the popular vote is nothing more than a directive to the States, telling them how to cast their Electoral Votes.
The Framers wanted to protect the president from having to fend off constant political threats so he could focus on the job of leading the country. To this end, they made it so that only the states, via the Congress, could remove the President, just as only the states could put him in to power. Only the "popular" branch of Congress could initiate charges, the idea being that it would serve as an outlet to public anger. Only the appointed branch of Congress could actually try those charges, the idea being that it would serve as a safety: only charges that had real merit would be tried.
The problem is that the Constitution, as it is now, is significantly different than the Constitution as written. Among other things, the President was originally the winner of the Electoral Vote and the Vice President was the runner-up and (presumably) the President's chiefest political opponent. The threat of being ousted and replaced by his nemesis was one of the checks on presidential power. That is also why the Vice President was made president of the Senate and head of all the things (ratify treaties, approve presidential nominations, etc.) that the Senate does. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, removed those checks and balances.
Also, the Framers fought against partisan politics, which is why the Constitution has nothing about coalitions or "making a government" similar to the Parlimentary system. I doubt very much they ever envisioned an entrenched two-party system where a single group of people held all three branches of government in a death-grip. And because they did not foresee that happpening, they never built in the means to remove a President -- or a Congress, or a Judiciary -- where such a monolithic party was corrupt.
Personally, I think we need to fall back on that wonderfully written bit of inflamatory, revolutionary rhetoric known as the Declaration of Independence. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Now, having been a patriot and quoted the loved-by-the-right-wing DoI, I expect the Department of Homeland Security will soon be inviting me for a visit.
(*) The House has only two distinct powers: it alone may draft a bill of impeachment against the President, Vice President or member of the federal judiciary (Article I, Section 2, para. 5) and it alone may initiate finance bills (Article I, Section 7.) Compare that to the extensive powers of the Senate, originally appointed by the state legislatures.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
