As I watched the town hall meeting held by the President on CNN last Thursday night, I thought continually of our form of government and how it differs from other countries. The United States is a republic. Although we often hear that we have a “democratic form of government,” this is not the case.
We live in a republic. If we had a pure democracy, then all of us would vote on every issue brought before the Congress or before state or local governments.
The fact is that we elect representatives to office whom we hope will represent us in a fair and honest manner.
These representatives hold office for a set period of time, then they have to stand for re-election. If the people don’t like what they have done, they can vote them out of office and a new set of representatives takes over.
The founding fathers founded a “republic”, and they, also, wrote a constitution. This constitution was designed to prevent an individual from amassing too much power and becoming a king, dictator, or a strong man.
They limited the government’s powers to do certain things to the people. They listed specific powers that the federal government has, and wrote in this constitution that all “powers not given to the federal government were reserved to the states or to the people.”
Every school boy and girl knows that there are three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. The legislative branch of government writes the laws. Once a bill has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is then sent to the President.
Here, the President has some options. He can sign the bill which makes the bill an official law, or he can veto the bill. If the bill is vetoed, Congress has to muster a two-thirds vote to override the veto. This happens, but rarely.
Remember that his CNN town hall meeting centered on gun control. The President had issued some executive orders mandating that there be expanded background checks for individuals wanting to purchase a firearm. Additionally, if a person had a mental disorder or was drawing social security and was deemed incapable of taking care of his/her personal business, then these individuals could not, under his executive order, purchase a firearm.
Many people support the President’s executive orders. They say that background checks are a commonsense way of reducing gun violence. They concur that those individuals with mental problems should be restricted from owning a firearm. “This is only common sense,” they argue.
But there is a problem. An executive order is not a law. It has not gone through the proper process of being approved by the Senate and House of Representatives.
In fact, what Obama did in his executive orders has been rejected by the Congress three times. But as frustrating as it may be for the President, he does not have the authority to write and enact laws. Only the Congress has that authority.
At some point in the very near future, his executive orders will be challenged in court. What will his answer be when the judge asks him, “Cite your legal authority for imposing these orders.” The wrong answer is going to be, “Well, your honor, Congress wouldn’t do anything and people were dying. I had to do something. So I wrote an executive order that will reduce gun violence.”
If Obama believes that expanded background checks will help reduce crime, then he should persuade Congress that a law should be written to give him the enforcement authority.
If Congress fails to act, this must be recognized and understood by the President that Congress has spoken. He has no authority other than the laws that are already on the books.
The founding fathers did not like dictators, and they designed a system of government whereby no one can garner enough power to act on his or her own. What the President has done is unconstitutional, and he knows it. Writing a law is not the job of the President. His job is to enforce the laws.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the first lawsuit to be filed.
......................................
