Separation of Powers?

We all grew up with the principles of Madison espoused in our Constitution firmly inculcated in our mushy little minds. One of the most significant aspects of that document is the distinction which is the foundation of a presidential republic in contrast to a parliamentary form of democracy.

Few of the people languishing in front of the TVs today could tell you what that difference is. The governments of places like Great Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, et. al. are parliamentary which means they have a fusion of powers in their organization. The Prime Minister is the chief executive and simultaneously the presiding officer of the legislature. The cabinet offices which administer the policies are sitting members of the legislature as well as members of the majority party. The judiciary is usually chosen from within one of the chambers of the legislature. The branches are intermingled and as a result the policy decisions are the clear responsibility of the majority party in power. When the majority party loses confidence of the electorate, there can be a vote indicating that loss and a call for elections without delay for a term to end.

Our presidential system is built on the principle of separation of powers rather than fusion. We have checks and balances to insure no branch can become predominant and beyond the control of the electorate.

Failure to keep those separations clearly before us is contributing to the downfall of the republic as we watch. Check it yourself. Ask your friends and co-workers who should be dealing with our policy questions. The answer you will inevitably receive is that it is the responsibility of the President. He should be directing Congress to do this, that, or the other.

That is not what the Founders gave us.

Check this:

A Panel Proposed Post-Elections

Please tell me you were outraged by the audacity of such a concept. Sure, at first glance it looks like a necessary action, doesn't it? The deficit is on steroids and the debt limits which Congress has established are only sufficient for another month or two after each increase. Bankruptcy on this path is increasingly inevitable. Let's reign in Congress...or not.

Be outraged by the timing. Look people! I'm your President doing something about the deficit with my panel. But, we'll only get to work after the November election so that my loyal minions will be able to continue doling out pork to their districts and their constituent voters until we get past this hump and are firmly entrenched for another two years. If it were worth doing, it would be worth doing immediately.

Be outraged by the assumption of power. The "power of the purse" has long been the major check of the legislature on the unbridled power of the executive. The voters hold the switch on keeping their representatives and insuring they control the reach of an overly aggressive President. Letting the executive tell the legislature what the limits of their spending will be is over-reaching. This proposal is unconstitutional as a breach of separation of powers.

Be outraged by the hypocrisy of the lie. There has been nothing visible in the last year of actions by this administration which indicates in any manner an interest in limiting spending. He has indicated on several occasions an awareness of the deficit, although he usually links that immediately with labeling as a legacy of the previous administration. Yet in his proposals he has suggested nothing by increased spending, increased redistribution of wealth, increased regulation of the formerly free market, and increased disregard for the impact of his proposals on economic recovery.

Put one short item on your "to-do" list this week. Dig out a copy of the Constitution and give it a quick skim. It's just a few thousand words and you can skip some of the parts about how many representatives the original thirteen states would receive or how pirates would be dealt with. Read the essentials and refresh your memory.