Warlord in Chief

By now, unless you've had your head in the sand, you've heard of ISIS (or ISIL). They are an 'extremest' terrorist organization operating in Syria and Iraq. They have been leaving a trail of destruction and death in their wake as they overtake cities that were once occupied by American forces. With the new 'threat' abroad, President Obama has decided that he may take action. As is custom for this President, he will not commit ground troops but instead intends to begin bombing Syria. With this new plan being tossed around, President Assad told President Obama to seek permission to begin bombing first. However, on Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki emphatically rejected that condition, telling reporters "We're not going to ask permission from the Syrian regime."

Now you can think what you want about Assad, but we have just told him that we will not seek permission or even notify him when we start blowing up his country. It has now become the job of the President to send bombs to foreign nations to kill 'radical extremists' that currently pose no threat to American soil.  Also, no matter how much we do not approve of Assad, he is still the leader of Syria. We have created this tangled web of alliances with radical groups throughout the Middle East. We support guerrilla organizations and influence the overthrow of governments, inadvertently creating a power vacuum where these more radicalized groups come in and take control.

This outcome is what happens when the President himself has the power to essentially declare war. We have granted him the authority to bomb foreign nations and pick which foreign regimes to overthrow. This is not the role of the executive envisioned by the founders and that power is not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. And there is good reason for that, the modern presidency essentially has the power of the British monarch from the 1700s. This is exactly what the founders were trying to prevent.

We have created a new kind of Executive, one that the writers of the Constitution never imagined. The government we now possess is much similar to the government we broke away from. The powers granted to those who hold office far exceed their original limits.We have become what W. F. Buckley refers to as a 'crown' government. Or maybe more accurately what George Mason called an "elective monarchy." We have vested almost all power to one central office.

We have created an executive office that our Constitution was meant to prevent. The president is granted powers over social issues, economic affairs, as well as the US military. And amazingly, most of this usurpation of power only started 60-70 years ago. The modern presidency will likely only increase in power, therefore making our congressmen virtually useless. We are in a sense evolving backwards. We created a government that was divided and checked against each other, with the primary role going to congress to create laws. We broke away from a monarch that had excessive power over its people. In modern times instead of American's being ruled by a British monarch, we willingly vote in our own.

The Cult of the Presidency

A few years back I purchased a book by Gene Healy, Vice President of the Cato Institute, entitled "The Cult of the Presidency." I am currently in the process of re-reading that book because it's that good. It is perhaps the single most important book I've read in regards to how I view the Executive Office. The book was written during the Bush years, so it's not an Obama bash fest like many books out now. It goes through the history of the Presidency, and in doing so calls out those who in the Bush administration pushed for a massive Executive expansion, mostly justified by John Yoo.

For those who are interested in learning more about the history of the Presidency, and the theories behind what powers the president wields, this is an excellent book likely the most well written book on the subject.

As I'm reading this book again I got to thinking about all the things the President does that are just blatantly unconstitutional. Mostly, the President's expansive war powers, which came with the stamp of approval from John Yoo in the Bush administration. Going back to the original intent of the Executive office, the nature of his authority is apart of the name, Preside. The role of the President is to enforce the laws passed by congress. We commonly hear that all three branches of government were created with checks and balances but, they are not equal. The Legislature was always intended to wield more influence than the President or the Supreme Court. Primarily because that is where the laws were made, the President just enforced them and the courts determined constitutionality.

Sadly, we have come so far from this view of the presidency it is almost impossible to go back. We as a people seem to believe that we have and should have a closer connection to the President than our own locally elected representatives who live down the road from us. There is this insanity that the President embodies the spirit of America. We have willingly elected a savior and corrupted our political system because of our own stupidity and shortsightedness.

This has caused news outlets go berserk when a natural disaster occurs and the president either does or does not go to the location to empathize with local families. Why does he need to be there? Shouldn't the people of that area be focused on restoring their lives and local agencies helping with that effort. The president shouldn't be a symbol of hope for us, that is how dictatorships begin. We freely give away our rights because we so trust this official with our well being.

To give a little perspective, during the founding era and into the 20th century (from Jefferson up to Wilson) the President did not give his State of the Union speech to congress. It was written because the precedent was that it would look like the President is trying to influence policy if he went himself. Now we have a sitting President who in his SOTU speech he openly attacks the Supreme Court. We have turned an office of enforcing the laws to the one who essentially mandates what Congress will take up that year. When congress passes a law that is credited to the President (Obamacare), you know there is corruption between the legislators and the enforcer. At that point you have to ask yourself, who does Congress work for, us or the President?

Sadly, the problem isn't a DC problem, it's our problem as a nation. We have created this powerful office. The Constitution has few and defined powers for that office, and with ambitions President's, and willing people, we have made it the most powerful branch of government. The "leader of the free world" resides in one man. He has the power to strike foreign nations without declaration, detain American citizens suspected to be terrorists and has successfully convinced the American people that massive government intervention into healthcare is a moral good. We are slowly breeding a dictatorship. We are not there, not even close, but when you look at the power that the President actually wields, the only thing holding us back is the type of person we elect, because the power is there.

Ferguson

The unrest in Ferguson is the number one story on almost every news outlet and has been since the protests and riots began over a week ago. So far there are very few facts, Michael Brown is dead, he was unarmed, and Officer Darren Wilson pulled the trigger. However, media sources have been scouring for details to sensationalize the story. New evidence emerges every day that change how things played out. Civil unrest has gripped Ferguson and it appears that the police are unable to control the situation.

In order to try and calm things down, Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson. Now, his presence there is to try and calm the people down and get to the bottom of what happened. But, it doesn't seem like this is his primary goal. At a community meeting Holder said, "I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man." He then goes on to tell a story of his own experience with racial profiling in NJ. Now, to me this doesn't sound like someone from the Justice Department. His main function there is to seek Justice, but upon arrival he starts speaking about racial profiling, leading those in Ferguson to assume that this is the case for the Michael Brown shooting. The problem is, we don't have the details yet.

There have been numerous eye witness testimony to the Officer Wilson shooting Brown after her surrendered. One thing is for sure, eye witness testimony is unreliable. Anyone who has taken a Psychology course will understand this. You can put 10 people in the exact same situation and they will all tell a different story. Now evidence has emerged that Officer Wilson sustained a 'blowout fracture' to his eye, suggesting there was a fight or some sort of struggle.
But back to the motives of Holder, what exactly is he trying to accomplish in Ferguson? He is saying that will be impartial, but going back to his remarks it seems he already believes that civil rights were violated. He is also having the Federal Government come in and search for any evidence of civil rights law violations.This will only throw more flames on the fire as Holder and his team look for civil rights violations that will be extrapolated to the rest of the police force. His first priority should be that the evidence is examined thoroughly and the sequence of events is verified. Evidence must be properly examined and justice served.
With Attorney Holder going to Ferguson, and the remarks he has made, I don't have much confidence in an impartial inquiry into the events. His remarks make it seem that his job comes second (being the Attorney General) and the fact that he is a black man first. Holder's comments are in direct contradiction to those of John Adams "We are a government of laws, not men."