OP-Ed

by: R.W. Monty

______________________________________________________

To: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 

 #1 First Street, Washington, D. C.

.Feb. 24, 2010

In the beginning we were British. Washington and our other founders liked a lot of British things, but they didn’t trust the autocracy. For this reason they began a search for something better. They tried a polyglot system called the Articles of Confederation. When that failed, they tried our current Federal Government. The denominator, between these two systems, is fear of autocracy. Our founders didn’t want a king or a tyrant.

Move forward 2 1/2 centuries. Mr. Obama has asked the Congress to deliver a Health Care bill for him to sign. The operative points here are:

  • The President asked them to do it
  • They are doing it
  • He will approve whatever it is, when they get it to his desk. This badly violates the Constitution.

My accusation is that, Congress and the Executive have traded jobs.

My reasoning is:  

  • The founders did not want a dictator or a tyrant so they split the power between the branches of government so that no one branch could operate the government by itself.
  • They separated the duties and abilities of the two branches into,  the branch that can “execute policy” and has all of the tools (The body) and,
  • The decision making – budget setting branch (The brains).

1) The Congress is to make grand designs, and fund them. (Example, “We want Health Care)

2) That requirement and funding is sent to the Executive to be executed in his own way.

I see this as being similar to the relationship between the Architect and the General Contractor.

I view the signature of the Executive as “an agreement to perform”. It basically means, “Yes, I can do that for the money you have allocated.”  This is fundamentally different from Mr. Obama’s apparent intent.  I would characterize his signature, if it comes, as meaning, “I approve, and with my signature I make it Law.”  This intent is what you would find in someone that is presiding, as would a king.

I ask you to:

1) Ban the term “President” and require the term “Executive.”

2) Nullify all “how to” details specified by Congress. Congress is to answer “what to do and whether to do it”. The detail of “how to and where to achieve the desired outcome” belongs to the Executive Branch.

3) The Executive will gain popularity by creating jobs and saving money, so I would ask you to also require that money saved must be applied to debt or returned to the tax payers. I will not profit, except by having a good government.

By doing these things you will save the world and establish a new Supreme Court president. That president is the ability of an individual to observe “a failure of the government to obey the Constitution” and report it.  If his point is compelling, then you will cut the red tape and hear him.

My basis for this stance is, The Court is omnipotent, limited only by the need for a meritorious plaintiff.  So, because I am complaining, you can hear me, if you agree that my complaint is meritorious.