My Modest Suggestion

by Liberty and Power

Here’s my suggestion for Bush’s second term.

More Comments:

Sheldon Richman - 11/11/2004

I didn't tell the President to interfere with the legislative branch. He can certainly present a program that contains suggested repeals. He also has allies in the House and Senate who can introduce such bills. Where's the problem?

Jonathan Dresner - 11/10/2004

You're right about the courts, though it never seemed to me that Marbury v. Madison was a particularly radical decision based on the text, as much as it was a clarification. But then, I'm not a strict constructionist....

But if the legislation is passed, and most of the material under discussion was signed with great pleasure by this president, so it clearly wasn't vetoed, then it is the law of the land. If you want to talk about unconstitutional constructions, let's talk about the leading role played by the white house in most modern legislation.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/10/2004

Actually, Jon, I think there is no _constitutional_ mandate that the courts be _the_ authority on constitutionality. That's a power asserted by the Supreme Court's own action. There's good reason to believe the the Congress has responsibility _not_ to pass legislation that it deems to be unconstitutional; and the Executive branch has responsibility to veto legislation which it deems to be unconstitutional.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/10/2004

Isn't there something contradictory about calling for the president to be strictly constitutional but also calling for him to interfere in the legislative process, not to mention his obligation to carry out the laws enacted thereby?

Isn't there something contradictory about calling for the President to be arbiter of constitutionality, when that is the ambit of the courts?