Can I just stop calling it TARP? The Troubled Assets Relief Program, as it was originally called, shall henceforth be known as PERP, the Presidential End-Run Program. As in, President Bush didn't like Congress' decision on the auto-bailout, so he did an end-run around the entire legislative branch and did what he darn well pleased. After all, he's the executive.
Well, Mr. President, let me tell you about the Executive Office, and the powers it holds.
The President of The United States of America is bound by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The Presidential Oath requires the would-be president to swear to "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.''
Nowhere does the Constitution enable the President to circumvent the will of Congress, save by veto. As Congress never passed an auto bailout bill, there was nothing for President Bush to veto, or to send back to Congress. He simply saw something that he did not like, and dismissed the objections of the elected representatives of the citizens of this country. He took a law marginally related to what he wanted to do (TARP/PERP), and made it do what he wanted, contrary to the expressed will of Congress, American citizens, and the wording of the bill itself. No fanfare, no rationalizations of the illegality/unconstitutionality of what he was doing. No justifications of how this was "faithfully upholding the law". Just a few penstrokes, and a quick press conference.
Great. Peachy. One can only imagine what horrors this could be the precedent for.
There's a reason that the Constitution balances the executive and legislative branches. There's a reason that laws must be approved by both Congress and the President. But now, according to President Bush, the entire legislative branch and the Constitution can be bypassed at the will of the Executive.
Just great.
I am indebted to George Will's article on this subject in the Washington Post.
UPDATE: I just finished reading the Will article all the way through (I had only seen a couple paragraphs before), and I note that a lot of this post makes the same points as Will's article. I could say something to effect of "great minds think alike", but that would be somewhat egotistical, don't you think? So I'll simply say that Will's article is great, and deserves a thorough reading through, as I should have done before I wrote this. That said, this is my material, not copied or paraphrased from Will's. He did give me a great idea, however.
2 comments:
What I find interested is that those on the left and right fear the Bush administration. Kevin Price, Host of the the Price of Business Radio Show (CNN) and writer at www.BizPlusBlog.com, put it very well in a recent post. Bush is an autocrat who disregards the people and the Constitution he swore to defend.
Anonymous, I wouldn't put it as harshly as that. I don't "fear" the Bush Administration. I think some of its decisions have been ludicrous, self-serving, and unconstitutional. BUT I also believe some of its decisions have been remarkably clear-headed and courageous. Yes, I'll be glad to see him go, if for no other reason than to give conservatism a clean slate. But I won't call him an autocrat, nor will I say that he has no regard for American citizens or the Constitution. Indeed, he has shown the American people enormous regard, especially soldiers and their families (of which I am one). His understanding of his power under the Constitution is flawed, yes, and I vehemently disagree with him on several issues. But he is no tyrant.
Post a Comment