"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."So it's interesting that our Presidents have, with some regularity, challenged laws enacted by Congress and used "executive discretion" to argue that they will not enforce or follow the law. What's not so remarkable is that President Bush as disproportionately resorted to this tactic, having challenged the authority of the law on no fewer than 750 occasions.
True, laws are different from constitutional articles, but one might argue that the law is the spirit of the Constitution. In his book The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria notes that the difference between successful and failed democracies is not freedom, but rule of law. The illiberal democracies have leaders who amend constitutions or ignore laws they find inconvenient, frequently throwing the country into turmoil.
It's disappointing to see that in addition to providing poor leadership on issues of human rights and torture, we're doing the same when it comes to equal justice under law.
1 comment:
I think this is a natural result of polarized politics. The issue is that we don't elect kings, we elect presidents, who should be constrained by the legal agreements (laws and treaties) of their predecessors. But if there's no respect for those predecessors' judgments, then their laws won't be followed. (Kyoto, non-proliferation, etc) It's just a simple jump to ignoring any law from that point.
e
Post a Comment