The Preamble to the Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Presidential Oath of Office
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Article II Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
The 10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10
I appreciate my fellow writer David Bringhurst’s response to my endorsement of John McCain for President. I knew from the moment I first conceived of the idea of the post I eventually wrote that I was exposing myself to such criticism, both because I am supporting a political moderate and because I am supporting him for a single, defined reason.
However, I found Bringhurst’s response predictable and presumptive. The refutations that he presented appeal to an academic understanding of the Constitution, the war against fundamentalist Islam—I used “War on Terror” simply as a recognizable term—and the role of the President and the federal government in our lives. In short, I think he fails to understand the nature of the toolbox he alludes to and why it contains a hammer to begin with.
I have never questioned whether or not the people of the United States of America have the ability to address one or many issues, especially domestic ones. What I question, in fact what I reject, is that the President or the federal government has any real role in ultimately solving those issues. I do not elect a president to stimulate the economy, force me to accept government health care, or create moral dictates for me to abide by. I elect a president to abide by the role he occupies as clearly defined by the Constitution and nothing more. I fervently believe that all other issues of national importance are issues for the people, not the federal government, to address and resolve as each person and as groups of cooperative people see fit. I believe that this view is the embodiment of the ideals of a government of, by, and for the people as conceived of by the Founding Fathers.
The idea that the President’s primary responsibility is to protect the Constitution from domestic threats clearly ignores the actual mandate of the Presidency as presented in the Constitution. It is no accident that Article II, Section 2, which lays out the responsibilities of the President, lists his role as commander-in-chief before all other concerns. In fact, if one is referring to oaths, then it is the oaths of everyone who works for the President, most especially the military, that contain the actual exhortation to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and it is those agencies of the executive that are charged with the task of preservation and defense, even against the President if need be.
Indeed, in the history of the executive branch of our federal government, the enduring agencies of the executive have always been State and Defense—until 1949 rightly entitled War—and those two agencies are explicitly outward looking in their very natures. Accepting this history as precedent, the role of the President as the chief executive agent, in my estimation, is to act as the international face of a nation that otherwise chooses to deal with its own affairs by actions other than the government.
Now to the more important issue, which is single issue that I believe has already defined the current Presidency, will undoubtedly define the next, and will likely trouble many administrations following that one: fundamentalist Islam is a threat not just to the United States, but to the rest of the non-fundamentalist world. This is not a slander against Islam itself but against a particular flavor of Islam that believes that it is a Muslim’s duty to subjugate the entire world under that interpretation by whatever means are necessary, including litigation, intimidation, and violence. I agree that this threat was brought into full focus on 9-11, but I was speaking against this threat after Khobar Towers, the first Trade Center attack, the African Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole. I continue to speak out against this threat, and will continue to do so until it no longer threatens.
Further, I understand something else about the war against fundamentalist Islam that so many people, including Bringhurst apparently, miss: it is a war, declared by our enemies and fought on behalf of the United States by an all-volunteer fighting force made up of professional, educated, dedicated, and willing warriors who understand better than anyone of any political ideology what our nation is and why it is necessary to fight. It should be telling to everyone that our military, made up of less than 1 percent of the population—just 2.4 million brave men and women—continue with courage, valor, and commitment to fight in places most people cannot find on a map or pronounce, not because they have to, but because they chose to and continue to choose to.
Which brings me to John McCain, the single issue of electing a wartime President, and the American toolbox that Bringhurst cites at the beginning of his rebuttal. Certainly, America has a vast and capable toolbox at its disposal. I choose to give the President I will vote for the hammer and ask him only to pound those nails well and with all of his might. The rest of those tools should reserve for the people for projects of our own choosing.
Postscript: For the sake of an accurate record, I have been in the military for 14 years and served from December 2002 to May 2003 as part of the 332nd Expeditionary Communications Squadron, then stationed at Ahmed al Jaber Airbase, Kuwait.
Posts
2 comments:
Well said, Denny. I'll consider a full response very carefully. For now, I think it is safe to say that we share much more common ground on the issue than not. I'm not sure how much of our differences are semantic or are merely perceived differences stemming from a lack of a more in-depth conversation on the issue.
Your service certainly provides you with valuable insight and experience and lends credence to your point. It will be difficult to overcome the emotional weight your service gives your argument. That emotional pull, stemming from the same heartfelt recognition of and thanks for your service that all of us surely feel, is well-earned on your part. It shouldn't, however, cloud our assessment of the issues at hand.
I find it easy to believe that your experiences give you a more immediate appreciation for the issue and shape your response to it. You might well have earned from your experience more factual insight than I possess, and I hope you will share of it what you may.
At the same time, your experiences may have also produced biases based on an up-close and emotionally charged view of only part of the scene. Either way, I feel safe in saying that neither one of us truly has a definitive picture of the situation. I want to be clear, however, that I do not say this to negate your experience and put us on equally shakey ground, a tactic too often used in public discourse today. I do believe it is true, though, that neither of us has been privy to the kinds of intelligence information that would allow us to accurately assess the degree of the threat.
I look forward to continued discussion.
Your concerns about my reaction to my own experience are well founded, David, and rationally evaluating my thinking relative to that experience is something I take very seriously whenever I comment publically on subjects like these.
One thing I would like to re-stress, perhaps only because I think my point may have been obscured in the original post, is that most of my views on these issues are informed not just by my experience, but by my firm belief in government limited to the greatest extent absolutelty possible. Put another way, I take the Constitution very seriously when it doles out responsibility, and want my elected leaders to do the jobs the have been assigned and nothing else.
As applied to McCain, I also have to be practical. We're not going to achieve limited government in one President's term, and in the mean time, that President has to work with what will likely be a left leaning Congress with ideas very different from my own. I disagree with McCain on a lot of issues, but more importantly, he stands for the one issue I believe is more important than all others and he brings compromise to the table in Washington in a way we have not seen since before 1994.
Of course, my position, indeed all political positions, benefit from the public discourse. Therein lies the true greatness of our form of government: that we can have these discussions openly, without fear of recourse, and that whoever is elected, the republic of, by, and for the people will endure because of its liberty.
I too look forward to the continued discussion.
Post a Comment