Harvey C. Mansfield wrote an op-ed for the WSJ’s Opinion Journal. The title of the piece: The Case for the Strong Executive. The subtitle: Under some circumstances, the rule of law must yield to the need for energy.
Read that subtitle again.
And then read it again.
Think about it for a while. Think about what he is saying.
The rule of law should never yield to anything. The rule of law is at the very foundation of the freedom we all enjoy in the West. It is the highest law, so to speak. Without the rule of law there would be no freedom for us to enjoy. We cannot do without the rule of law, nor can we allow the rule of law to, temporarily, ‘yield’ to something else.
“The rule of law should never yield to anything.” — mvdg
Michael, did you actually read the article?
In other words, that has been tried, and it failed due to inherant onesidedness. The founding fathers of America knew history and LEARNED FROM IT. Returning to the failed policies of yesteryear based on well intentioned but simplistic ideological notions footed in ignorance is only a recipe for trouble.
Of course, what we have is an unstable system, like all living things, yet capable of self adjustment - unless one side becomes paralized ot the other overly dominant, or both as seems to be the trend we are in now. Hopefully the built in safeguards will save us, yet again.
The people who say that the executive should be above the law seem to be those who are most afraid that an immediate crisis cannot be dealt with forcefully or expeditiously enough.
I’m unsure whether they actually believe the executive should be above the law or not. Instinct - or my hope - tells me that they don’t believe any such thing, that they’re simply not thinking matters through from a long-term perspective.
Tension between the branches of government is essential - that is the purpose of separation of powers, not to put one branch above the others.
If the executive exceeds his authority the other branches are to hold his office accountable, or not, as they see fit. Certainly the executive and his orders cannot be immune from review and rebuke.
Yonason, I question whether the American system is unstable, assuming it’s our government you refer to. President Bush has been denied certain actions by the Supreme Court and other of his “initiatives” have been reviewed and weakened by Congress. That the latter lack sufficient will to do more is not indicative of a failed system; rather, it’s a reflection of the divided will of the people.
marc
“Yonason, I question whether the American system is unstable, assuming it’s our government you refer to.”
It’s not just the US, but any society, to one extent or other. They are all in a sense living organisms, and as such they are by definition “unstable,” like a tightrope walker is unstable. Whenever any living organism approaches a stable state, it is sad to be dying, and when it achieves equilibrium, it has decomposed.
Yes, they are “stable” as long as nothing pushes them beyond their ability to maintain their organization, but once pushed byond their ability to endure they will irreversably fall apart, because beyond the narrow limits of their stability, they are highly unstable.
“Tension between the branches of government is essential”
What is essential is that each branch have some freedom to act independently without the other micromanaging every tiny move and attempting to gain outright control over the other. The tension is essential, but not to the point of paralysis, the effects of which limit the effectiveness of the both the executive and the legislative. Each side has to be able to make and recover from mistakes. If one side is too weak or the other side too assertive, the whole efiface lists to one side or the other, and could in extreme cases collapse
The president hasn’t done anything illegal, despite all the numerous vile false accusations so disgustingly prevalent on the Left and in their media. The Democrat’s have ceaselessly badgered not only the President but countless other Republicans, most of whom haven’t been guilty of anything except not doing what the Dems want. That is not good governance, but the road to tyrany.
What the Democrats are doing is to over-assert their authority to the point of denying the President his, not the other way around as they falsely assert. And they are going about it in very underhanded ways.
One way they are doing this is focusing on the mostly manufactured “evils” of Republicans rather than on the real problems in their own midst. E.g., you won’t find Dems cleaning their own house
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007432.htm
But they’ll gladly trash an innocent Republican based on pure fabrication and hate
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017501.php
The Dems are pushing the envelop, and we will soon see how resilient our Democracy still is.
I thought he made a compelling argument, especially here:
If the people would vote for a suicidal policy or one that endangers the nation, the president’s obligation is to overrule them (in terms of foreign policy and his CIC role). That kind of executive authority shouldn’t be used capriciously of course, but there are times when it is called for.
It’s a balancing act, no doubt about it. Regarding suicidal policies, many have argued that an out-of-control U.S. leader is pursuing one even now and that the people have no recourse to reign him in.
I don’t for a moment believe that’s true of Bush or his policies. However, I can more easily envision a misguided leader than a misguided society at large.
Marc,
I can see why you’d feel that way (your last statement) but I actually think we are seeing signs of society being highly misguided right now. There’s little informed debate and a whole lot of kneejerk reactions, and the country is both war weary and distrustful of an administration which has mismanaged the war so I don’t think that a lot of people are thinking clearly about what our next steps need to be.
So I guess I’d say that I think there’s some risk of either or both happening in terms of a leader sending us off a cliff or a population of lemmings jumping off of it on their own.
I’m surprised at those of you who rally around an argument for dictatorship.
Mike is correct, the rule of law should never be sacrificed. The rule of law is a strength during the worst of times, not a liability.
You should also realize that any nation which yields absolute power to it’s leader during a time of crisis is guaranteed to be in crisis, forever.
I agree with Michael, but your not so correct
We have had periods of crisis with near-dictator presidencies more than once. And each time we’ve - peacefully, swung the power back again.
The difference is in our utmost belief in the Constitution
Exactly, Interested. If an Executive oversteps, there are Constitutional remedies for that as well.
“. . . , I can more easily envision a misguided leader than a misguided society at large.” — marc
Yes.
And, G-d willing, it will never come to society at large being so misquided, because if it is even a ‘rightly guided’ leader probably won’t be much use.
Of course, it doesn’t take all of society to cause problems. If only one, or even worse both, major political parties loose their focus, even if society at large isn’t completely messed up there will be an unavoidable breakdown of effective leadership. Unfortunately, I think that is what has been happening. We may disagree on who is the worst offender or which policies are or aren’t appropriate, but I think it is clear from the increasing meanness from the Left and confusion on the Right that things are not what they should be.
“Exactly, Interested. If an Executive oversteps, there are Constitutional remedies for that as well.” — C Stanley
Yes, and he (and Congress) should have some freedom to overstep, and not be called to account unless those steps are far enough out of line to warrant action. As to preventive measures, that’s what consultations are for, to make clear in private what each side wants and arrive at a plan of action. Still, the executive has (or should have) the final say in certain policies and only be held to account if they go drastically wrong.
The problem has been that the opposition and the media have dwelt on false accusations, selective reporting, and disproportionate responses to what are relatively trivial offenses.
All that does is prevent each side from dealing effectively with it’s responsibilities. And inaction at a time of national peril is NOT a good thing.
7 Mikef
Mikef, go back and read the article again.
It is arguing for the Executive branch to NOT be subordinate to the Legislative, BECAUSE that had already been tried in other countries and failed miserably, resulting in disasters in France and to a lesser extent in Britain.
The Founder Fathers wanted to, and to a large extent did, fix a lot of what was wrong with previous attempts at setting up Democratic Republics.
It isn’t saying a President can or should do whatever he wants with impunity. It’s saying that if the president is powerless then we will be ruled solely by the Congress which will result in national paralysis in the face of any crisis and a lack of accountability when something does go wrong.
I did read the article, thanks. Harvey C. Mansfield calls explicitly for the rule of one-man over the rule of law.
Those of you who agree with that ideology can’t then turn around and seek remedy in the Constitution. The constitution is the embodiment of the rule of law in this country, and one which the president quite explicitly took an oath to uphold and protect.
Who here exactly was agreeing 100% with that ideology.
“Harvey C. Mansfield calls explicitly for the rule of one-man over the rule of law.” — Mikef
Sorry Mikef, I don’t see it. To me it looks like he is advocating a “strong” executive when times demand it, and a “strong” legislative when times demand that.
He also seems to be saying that enough flexibility was built into our constitution to accomodate that. The only problem is that those in government must be wise enough to know how to use the powers they have, otherwise the whole exercise is meaningless. The nation’s existance is predicated on enough “wise” leaders to guide the nation correctly.
Anyway, if you could help me out here and tell me what portion of the article you think explicitly requires what seems to amount to a king, I would appreciate it because I just can’t find it.
And for an (not so responsible) opposing opinion . . .
http://www.progress.org/fold118.htm
. . . with which I disagree. It does give some interresting history to see how presidential power has been used before, and I think does far more to undermine his argument than support it.
Limiting it in some of those circumstances would have been foolish and dangerous, except maybe in Clinton’s case. But one can’t hamstring all presidents just because one is a loose cannon.
If not for Lincoln’s “energy” which was built into the constitution, the USA (and/or Confederacy?) would be a very different place today.
THIS EXCELLENT ANALYSIS MAY BE HELPFUL TO THOSE HAVING TROUBLE WRAPPING YOUR MINDS AROUND THE CONCEPT