Presidential Powers
1. A Quick Overview
Why does the U.S. President have so much power? Weren’t we trying to avoid a monarchy? Why does he, she or they (well only ‘he’ so far, but we can dream) have unilateral control of nuclear weapons, environmental protections and judicial appointments? Even the mandatory oversight Congress has over Cabinet appointments is conquerable by simply adding ‘Acting’ to a person’s title.
It is irresponsible and incongruent with democratic desires to place so much unchecked power in one. So, we’ve pumped the breaks.
Our Constitution limits Presidential power in many ways, here are a few examples:
Article 4, Section 4 is a significant check on power in multiple ways. It limits the President’s appointment power, creating independent roles in the Cabinet:
(In part) Notwithstanding the provision above, the President makes decisions on the following matters without a motion, order or Act: (i) The appointment of non-elected Executive branch department heads, who all shall also sit on the Executive Cabinet, with the approval of the Congress of each individual by simple majority; (ii) The issuance of an order concerning extraordinary Congressional elections; and (iii) Other matters, as specifically laid down by Acts, concerning private individuals or matters not requiring consideration in a plenary meeting of the Congress.
It stipulates that Presidential decision-making must be grounded in good faith and rationality (versus capriciousness and politics):
(In part) The President makes decisions on other appointments and matters pertaining to the Office of the President as within constitutional guidelines and bounded by oath, good faith and reason.
And, it limits Presidential war powers:
(In part) Decisions on California’s participation in matters of war are made by Act approved by a two-thirds majority of the Congress and signed by the President. It is the responsibility of the Department of Peace to consider all routes of diplomacy, assist in all manners of non-violent protest, and assist in amnesty and immigration to California for those at risk in war torn areas prior to deploying any armed force to a foreign arena of war.
Meanwhile, Article 4, Section 5 halts unilateral Presidential pardoning powers:
In individual cases, the President may, after obtaining the approval of the Supreme Court and the Sentencing Tribunal’s senior administrator, grant full or partial pardon from a penalty or other criminal sanction imposed by a court of law. A general amnesty may be provided only by Act.
Article 4, Section 7 delineates the Cabinet departments which are independent bodies under the law, unfettered by Presidential influence. They are the critical departments which oversee justice, the environment, war and safety:
(In part) The following departments are independent bodies under the law: (i) Justice; (ii) Environmental Protection; (iii) Peace; and (iv) Public Safety. Each is under the authority of their elected head official, the Attorney General at the Department of Justice, the Administrator of Environmental Protection at the Department of Environmental Protection, the Secretary of Peace at the Department of Peace and the Secretary of Safety at the Department of Public Safety, each of whom is elected by eligible voters, may serve a maximum of two six-year terms, and sits on the Executive Cabinet but is not under the command of the President.
This Section also strengthens Congressional oversight of Presidentially appointed positions, restricting any delays in appointment hearings and the timeframe which an ‘Acting’ department head is allowed to serve:
(In part) The following departments are under the authority of the President and their department heads are appointed at the discretion of the President subject to confirmation by a simple majority of the Congress: (i) Agriculture; (ii) Commerce; (iii) Education; (iv) Health & Human Services; (v) Interior; (vi) Labor; (vii) Transportation; (viii) Treasury; and, (ix) Veteran Affairs. Prior to Congressional approval, an acting department head may serve for a maximum of thirty days. The Congress, nor the acting department head, nor the President shall unreasonably delay information sharing, hearings, and Congressional vote regarding appointment of a department head.
Article 4, Section 13 sets a new standard for Presidential impeachment, depoliticizing the process via the High Court of Impeachment. It also requires the President to abstain from office during the trial in order to dissuade tampering or pressure on the process:
If the Attorney General or a simple majority of the Executive Cabinet deem that the President is guilty of treason, bribery, a crime against humanity, or other high crime or misdemeanor, the matter shall be communicated to the Congress. In this event, if the Congress, by two-thirds of the votes cast, decides that charges are to be brought, the Attorney General shall prosecute the President in the High Court of Impeachment and the President shall abstain from office for the duration of the proceedings.
Article 3, Section 9 prevents a President from withholding critical information from Congress:
The Congress has the right to receive from governmental bodies the information it needs in the consideration of matters. The appropriate Representative shall ensure that Committees and other Congressional organs receive without delay the necessary documents and other information in the possession of the authorities. A Committee has the right to receive information from any governmental body on any matter within its competence unless doing so would greatly threaten an ongoing investigation or public safety.
Lastly, Article 6, Section 5 removes Presidential unilateral appointment of judges, requiring any potential appointee to be recommend by a non-partisan Judicial Nomination Committee:
Judges shall be recommended by the non-partisan Judicial Nomination Committee, approved by a simple majority in the Congress and appointed by the President, all of which shall be in a timely manner, not unreasonably withheld, and in accordance with the procedure laid down by Act.
A President in the Free Republic of California would govern, not rule.
2. Influence Your Representatives
Here is some suggested text to use:
Dear _______________,
A President is not a monarch. No human is infallible. Democracy must be protected.
Our democracy however, has crept closer and closer to monarchy (or dictatorship for that matter) and away from the balance of government powers necessary to function properly, for example:
Presidents control the judiciary. They pick all the judges and the Attorney General.
Presidents can unilaterally start wars. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001) allowed a President to enter wars that nearly twenty years later are still ongoing.
Presidents control environment protection efforts. They control the Environmental Protection Agency, not only appointing its Administrator, but influencing its policy. They’re even able to omit the words ‘Climate Change’ from EPA documents at the request of eco-terrorists (i.e. Exxon Mobile).
Presidents unilaterally control federal public safety. What if they don’t care for all of our safety?
Presidents can pardon anyone. Can we allow pardons for co-conspirators to a President’s crimes, or, even worse, for war criminals?
Presidents can hide information and ignore Congressional oversight. Can there be a balance of power if one branch can entirely ignore another without repercussion?
In order to protect our democracy, to ensure safety and to develop a sustainable existence, it is critical to limit Presidential powers immediately. To that end, I ask that you consider Constitutional amendments to address all the issues above. To save time, suggested language for said amendments can be found in ‘The Free Republic of California Constitution’ which is easily found online.
Sincerely yours,
X
