Constitutional Rubbish
Posted: Friday, May 15, 2009
by Joel Hirschhorn
http://www.delusionaldemocracy.com
Americans need a civics lesson. And so do politicians. Of all the wrong and delusional thinking about the US Constitution the one that is most thoroughly incorrect and routinely used for political propaganda purposes is that there are three coequal branches of the federal government.
You hear presidents, members of Congress and media pundits say it all the time. They are wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers is there any statement or declaration that the three branches are coequal. Why has this myth persisted for so long? Why do so many prominent and supposedly educated people keep invoking this outright lie?
Historical analysis has always shown that the Founders, if anything, intended for Congress to be preeminent, and not the President and the executive branch. For example, only Congress has the constitutional power to remove the President and other high officers of the executive branch as well as the judiciary, but the latter cannot remove any member of Congress. And Congress has control of raising and spending government funds as well as the power to overrule any presidential attempt to veto legislation. That Congress does not always choose to fully exercise its constitutional powers does not remove them.
As to the Supreme Court and the whole judiciary, they function only as long as Congress provides funds, the executive branch provides security, and both choose to obey court decisions. More importantly, the Supreme Court does not act on its own to enforce the Constitution, even when the President and Congress disobey it, but it could.
It is time for Americans to stop and think. In what exact ways are the three branches coequal? According to the dictionary coequal means resembling each other in all respects. But ridding the culture of constitutional myths seems awfully difficult, especially since Garry Wills published his excellent book "A Necessary Evil" a decade ago, which artfully exposed a number of them.
In particular, presidents seem to like talking about the coequal branches of government, including Barack Obama. In January 2008 Obama said this in a speech: "No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it." Do presidents really want coequal branches? I think not. But they want Americans to keep believing in coequality, because it sounds good and adds an aura of respect for government that politicians desperately want.
In reality, presidents with the most political power want others with far less power to feel good. They want to keep the public believing (incorrectly) that the president is very limited in power. If George W. Bush proved anything it was not just that he created the imperial presidency, but that over time the presidency has become a mostly unchecked, pre-eminent and over-powerful government force. They have accumulated far more powers than ever envisioned by the Constitution. By regularly invoking the false coequality of branches argument and its derivative checks and balances thesis, presidents intentionally spread the propaganda to safeguard an all-powerful presidency and executive branch.
Meanwhile, Americans are largely ignorant that Congress has refused to honor and obey an important constitutional option in Article V: a convention of state delegates that could propose constitutional amendments, despite over 750 applications from all 50 states for a convention. It is their way of preserving exclusivity for proposing amendments and presidents say nothing because they fear amendments curbing their power. The Supreme Court does nothing because it likes amending the Constitution through its decisions.
Understand this: Having distinct constitutional responsibilities does not make branches coequal. The myth of coequality protects our delusional democracy and makes a mockery of our constitutional republic. If people really want coequal branches then they should start thinking about a constitutional amendment to make it so. Alternatively, we need Congress and the judiciary to act with far greater strength and conviction to use their constitutional powers and more effectively constrain presidential powers.
If prominent people tell a lie enough times, again, and again, and again, then the public lie becomes accepted fact, a cultural myth. So it is with the three coequal branches of government lie. It will be defended. It serves a purpose: False confidence in constitutional government.
This Article has been viewed 1,222 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (5 total)A great article, written with a sense of frustration at the game our government plays with the constitution. It all comes down to power, who has it and who wants to keep it. Good work.Bob
Very well done. Everyone in this country should revisit civics, and your article is a great start.
Thank you for a great article. I have been reading about the history of Congress and I was amazed. I love articles like yours that open people's eyes if they want to be opened. Thank you again.Linda d
Joel, the Consitution, what is that? Do they even teach about it any longer in school?
Joel, even though I know you won't respond, I leave this comment for the readers.
I've written extensively on this topic (see my 20-plus articles on the 7 articles and 27 amendments) because even though our naturalized citizens, police officers, military, and political officials swear to it few know it, the Constitution that it.. Some details to flesh out and support:
George Will, he of bow-tie and Ivy League pedigree states that "Congressional supremacy is . . . a constitutional fact: there is little the president can do if a determined congressional majority opposes it."
And if anyone thinks there are three coequal branches, here's what our boy Geoge H W had to say about Congressional approval in sending troops into the Persian Gulf: "I didn't have to get permission from some old goat in the United States Congress to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait."
But this difference is most aptly stated and clarified by political scientist Richard Neustadt:"The constitutional convention of 1787 is supposed to have created a government of seperated powers.' It did nothing of the sort. Rather, it created a government of separated institutions sharing powers."
The ultimate question is "how much and to what extent is that power shared?" Rock on, my political pundit. Rock on.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.