"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm not going to go the traditional route on this, because the arguments over it get overplayed as it is. Instead I am going to focus on an aspect that I find interesting.
In the conflict between the Federalists who supported the ratification of the new Constitution and the Anti-Federalists who opposed it, a large concern was over individual rights. Given the tyranny of the British government, their concerns were reasonable, and the Bill of Rights is an important answer to those concerns.
What we frequently see though is that while people may have in mind that they need to protect against overreach from a government that wants to control them and take away their liberties, conflicts actually arise from individuals or groups trying to impose on the freedom of other individuals or groups, and the government becoming the protector, or failing to as the case may be.
When you have other countries who don't think this new republic can make it, a militia is necessary, though without proper regulation it can lead to more trouble. There could still be times when it is necessary to defend against an invading force.
It is more common for the enemy to come from within. Perhaps that is why it is so popular to frame different groups as outsiders, and not real citizens.
We have referred to regulation of gun sales as being allowable under the Commerce Clause. In addition, based on what the government talks about, there is no reason to believe that the intention is to completely halt all sales or to start seizing guns. Despite logic, there is enough paranoia about it that every mass shooting spikes an increase in gun purchases.
However, if the government, with the full power of the military, despite any indication of that desire and in spite of all the checks and balances in the Constitution actually starting seizing guns, these stockpiles would be very ineffective.
So perhaps it would be more valuable to focus on things that are happening, and devote some resources to that.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Sunday, April 24, 2016
The First Amendment
Okay, let's spend some time on the amendments. Most of them aren't lengthy, so some might be combined, and we'll just see how it goes, starting with the first.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Most of the amendments, especially in the Bill of Rights, are pretty specific in their focus. This one treats three pretty broad topics.
I think there are a couple of ways of looking at that. One might be that if you separated them into separate amendments, the order in which they were listed could be interpreted as a ranking and prioritization, when the intention was to give them equal weight.
Another possibility is that the three were considered necessary for matters of conscience.
Religion was something that had been restricted by the colonies before. Quakers could be fined for not attending Puritan meetings, religious dissidents had been expelled from some communities, and yet coming to one's own religious beliefs and then practicing them is a very personal matter.
It might not appear that press and assembly would face similar threats, but a religious meeting is an assembly, the printing of religious material requires a press. If those freedoms are impinged, then religious freedom is.
Of course, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press do not need to be religious in their application, but they are also important for information, and for collaboration. The revolutionaries had not been happy with their options for petitioning the government. Their needed to be better options in place. With mass media and internet, we can accomplish a lot without being in the same space, but it is still a form of assembly. For the options that were available at the time, these safeguards make perfect sense.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Most of the amendments, especially in the Bill of Rights, are pretty specific in their focus. This one treats three pretty broad topics.
I think there are a couple of ways of looking at that. One might be that if you separated them into separate amendments, the order in which they were listed could be interpreted as a ranking and prioritization, when the intention was to give them equal weight.
Another possibility is that the three were considered necessary for matters of conscience.
Religion was something that had been restricted by the colonies before. Quakers could be fined for not attending Puritan meetings, religious dissidents had been expelled from some communities, and yet coming to one's own religious beliefs and then practicing them is a very personal matter.
It might not appear that press and assembly would face similar threats, but a religious meeting is an assembly, the printing of religious material requires a press. If those freedoms are impinged, then religious freedom is.
Of course, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press do not need to be religious in their application, but they are also important for information, and for collaboration. The revolutionaries had not been happy with their options for petitioning the government. Their needed to be better options in place. With mass media and internet, we can accomplish a lot without being in the same space, but it is still a form of assembly. For the options that were available at the time, these safeguards make perfect sense.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
The Constitution - The Bill of Rights
I have not been sure whether I want to go over all of the amendments, and if I do, whether to do one at a time or to do them in groups. For right now I am going to punt and just write a little about the first ten and their genesis.
There Articles of Confederation were not able to keep things running smoothly when there were conflicts between individual states. The move to the Constitution accomplished that by strengthening the federal government, but not everyone was in favor of that.
Those who approved less of this centralization, notably George Mason and Elbridge Gerry, wanted to include a statement of the rights of the people, or a Bill of Rights, and there was some bitter contention about this.
It makes sense for the time. They had just rebelled against king and country for freedom, and now they were strengthening this new government, when they had meant for the strength to be in the people. The Constitution described how the government would run, but not in what direction.
It may be helpful to think of the Bill of Rights as the check for the people. The Legislative can make laws or fail laws, the Executive can propose and veto laws, and the Judicial can interpret and overturn laws, and the citizens participate by voting, but also there is a statement of rights. The laws can't go in some directions, because that would be too much of an attack upon liberty.
It was not even immediately agreed upon that the principles in the Bill of Rights affected state laws, as they were originally only applied to federal laws, but that has evolved too. Usually when we speak of constitutional rights, we are referring to the first addition to the Constitution.
And it matters that these apply to state laws, because usually whenever people start talking about state's rights, some state is wanting to abuse someone else. Historically that has been the case over and over again. It would appear that the states have enough rights to treat their residents fairly.
If we do go over all of the amendments, that might be something that comes up.
There Articles of Confederation were not able to keep things running smoothly when there were conflicts between individual states. The move to the Constitution accomplished that by strengthening the federal government, but not everyone was in favor of that.
Those who approved less of this centralization, notably George Mason and Elbridge Gerry, wanted to include a statement of the rights of the people, or a Bill of Rights, and there was some bitter contention about this.
It makes sense for the time. They had just rebelled against king and country for freedom, and now they were strengthening this new government, when they had meant for the strength to be in the people. The Constitution described how the government would run, but not in what direction.
It may be helpful to think of the Bill of Rights as the check for the people. The Legislative can make laws or fail laws, the Executive can propose and veto laws, and the Judicial can interpret and overturn laws, and the citizens participate by voting, but also there is a statement of rights. The laws can't go in some directions, because that would be too much of an attack upon liberty.
It was not even immediately agreed upon that the principles in the Bill of Rights affected state laws, as they were originally only applied to federal laws, but that has evolved too. Usually when we speak of constitutional rights, we are referring to the first addition to the Constitution.
And it matters that these apply to state laws, because usually whenever people start talking about state's rights, some state is wanting to abuse someone else. Historically that has been the case over and over again. It would appear that the states have enough rights to treat their residents fairly.
If we do go over all of the amendments, that might be something that comes up.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
The Constitution - Articles V, VI, and VII
The next and final three articles are all pretty short, and can easily be treated together.
This is where we get into the housekeeping issues. Articles I, II, and III laid out the branches of government pretty smoothly, and Article IV reminded us of how the states fit in together, but is that enough to keep the union going, and if not how do we adjust for that?
Article V - The process for amending the Constitution is set forth, with how to start the process and how much support is needed, with the caveat that these new amendments cannot disenfranchise any state. (There was also a time limit put on for certain tax issues from Article I, that they could not be changed before 1808.)
Article VI - This article starts off saying that any debts accrued by the country before the Constitution were still valid. On the surface this looks simple, as a confirmation that this new Constitution is a strengthening continuation, not a disruption. The nation's word and bond are good.
It seems odd, then, that right after that we read that the Constitution shall be "the supreme Law of the Land". Other laws and treaties are made in accordance with it, and judges are bound by it. It feels like that has already been implied, or that maybe this clause should have come earlier.
I like to think of it as a part of coming to the conclusion. We have worked on this. We believe it is good, and solid, even though we know we have limitations, which is why we just had an article about amending it. Still, this will take precedence. This is that guide that will help us weigh things correctly. Placed where it is, the Supremacy Clause appears to me as a vote of confidence it what had been accomplished.
As part of that, elected representatives will be bound by an oath of affirmation to the Constitution, but it also states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Back when I first read the Constitution as part of history class (so 1989) I remember seeing that the Constitution did not really go over American values. Those come in the Bill of Rights, and that the first ten amendments came in that form, coming out with the Constitution, shows that the framers felt including these values were important. Nonetheless, the articles themselves are very focused on the nuts and bolts of governance.
We get freedom of religion in the First Amendment, so we know it's important there, but also here we have it. It's not just that citizens can have their religious freedom, but that a religious test will never be required for serving in government. That was important, and it needed to be clear.
Article VII - This sets forth the process for ratifying the Constitution. It was a one-time need, and probably by the time most people could read it, the ratification was already past, but it confirms that the care that went into the process, and that the support of the majority would be required.
These could easily be viewed as the most boring of the Articles - though VI has come up in a few cases - but together they show the conscientiousness and the care that went into making the document.
The United States was still a very young country, and they had already learned from mistakes. In previous posts we have covered the mistakes that they were still making, but there were also things that were being done well, and these can be admired.
This is where we get into the housekeeping issues. Articles I, II, and III laid out the branches of government pretty smoothly, and Article IV reminded us of how the states fit in together, but is that enough to keep the union going, and if not how do we adjust for that?
Article V - The process for amending the Constitution is set forth, with how to start the process and how much support is needed, with the caveat that these new amendments cannot disenfranchise any state. (There was also a time limit put on for certain tax issues from Article I, that they could not be changed before 1808.)
Article VI - This article starts off saying that any debts accrued by the country before the Constitution were still valid. On the surface this looks simple, as a confirmation that this new Constitution is a strengthening continuation, not a disruption. The nation's word and bond are good.
It seems odd, then, that right after that we read that the Constitution shall be "the supreme Law of the Land". Other laws and treaties are made in accordance with it, and judges are bound by it. It feels like that has already been implied, or that maybe this clause should have come earlier.
I like to think of it as a part of coming to the conclusion. We have worked on this. We believe it is good, and solid, even though we know we have limitations, which is why we just had an article about amending it. Still, this will take precedence. This is that guide that will help us weigh things correctly. Placed where it is, the Supremacy Clause appears to me as a vote of confidence it what had been accomplished.
As part of that, elected representatives will be bound by an oath of affirmation to the Constitution, but it also states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Back when I first read the Constitution as part of history class (so 1989) I remember seeing that the Constitution did not really go over American values. Those come in the Bill of Rights, and that the first ten amendments came in that form, coming out with the Constitution, shows that the framers felt including these values were important. Nonetheless, the articles themselves are very focused on the nuts and bolts of governance.
We get freedom of religion in the First Amendment, so we know it's important there, but also here we have it. It's not just that citizens can have their religious freedom, but that a religious test will never be required for serving in government. That was important, and it needed to be clear.
Article VII - This sets forth the process for ratifying the Constitution. It was a one-time need, and probably by the time most people could read it, the ratification was already past, but it confirms that the care that went into the process, and that the support of the majority would be required.
These could easily be viewed as the most boring of the Articles - though VI has come up in a few cases - but together they show the conscientiousness and the care that went into making the document.
The United States was still a very young country, and they had already learned from mistakes. In previous posts we have covered the mistakes that they were still making, but there were also things that were being done well, and these can be admired.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
The Constitution - Article IV
The articles follow a logical order.
We start with the legislative branch, because that is how laws will be made, and then we can go forward with making laws and getting this country going. Then you cover the executive and judicial branches, rounding out the federal, but that leads us naturally into the role of the states, and then we have some housekeeping and procedural items to settle that will allow a forward motion.
Article IV is where we go over the states, and this is another clause that we sometimes hear about: the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
It doesn't matter than Pennsylvania is bigger than Rhode Island, or if New York has more money than North Carolina, they are all states and their actions will be recognized as valid by others.
That means that if you are wanted for a crime in one state and cross into another state, you can still be extradited. If you have a drivers license issued by Oregon, you can drive in Washington.
There are other things that have not been established as being included within that, because there is some ambiguity. It was not considered to apply to interracial marriages when states had different laws on those, and while there could have been cases coming up testing the clause for same-sex marriage, that fight was ended when it was approved federally.
There is also some information about the admission of new states, which helped that process go smoothly. When there were issues with that process, it would be about the Slavery question, and that rears its ugly head here too, with Section 2 specifying that a slave escaping into a another state did not mean freedom. (The insertion of this clause required some less than open reinsertion after it was struck down.) A tendency by some states to not adhere too fully to this clause gave us two Fugitive Slave Acts and the Dred Scott decision.
There is also a reinforcement of the rights of states to representation, and a protection of their property. This is significant for two reasons.
The protection of personal property has been considered an essential part of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all along. If what was yours was not yours, then how free are you? How safe are you? And perhaps how happy can you be? That in itself is fine, though certainly an overemphasis on property can impede happiness as well.
However, once we have decided - in this document and in the formation of this country - that a person can be property, then the document is compromised. It means that there in injustice built into the foundation of the nation, and that is going to lead to conflict and death and destruction.
It also means that the country has in its DNA a need and ability to be able to look at a person and see less of a person. We still haven't rooted that out.
That Article IV invokes equality and balance between the states is good, but the flaw that started in the very first Article is woven throughout the whole document.
We start with the legislative branch, because that is how laws will be made, and then we can go forward with making laws and getting this country going. Then you cover the executive and judicial branches, rounding out the federal, but that leads us naturally into the role of the states, and then we have some housekeeping and procedural items to settle that will allow a forward motion.
Article IV is where we go over the states, and this is another clause that we sometimes hear about: the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
It doesn't matter than Pennsylvania is bigger than Rhode Island, or if New York has more money than North Carolina, they are all states and their actions will be recognized as valid by others.
That means that if you are wanted for a crime in one state and cross into another state, you can still be extradited. If you have a drivers license issued by Oregon, you can drive in Washington.
There are other things that have not been established as being included within that, because there is some ambiguity. It was not considered to apply to interracial marriages when states had different laws on those, and while there could have been cases coming up testing the clause for same-sex marriage, that fight was ended when it was approved federally.
There is also some information about the admission of new states, which helped that process go smoothly. When there were issues with that process, it would be about the Slavery question, and that rears its ugly head here too, with Section 2 specifying that a slave escaping into a another state did not mean freedom. (The insertion of this clause required some less than open reinsertion after it was struck down.) A tendency by some states to not adhere too fully to this clause gave us two Fugitive Slave Acts and the Dred Scott decision.
There is also a reinforcement of the rights of states to representation, and a protection of their property. This is significant for two reasons.
The protection of personal property has been considered an essential part of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all along. If what was yours was not yours, then how free are you? How safe are you? And perhaps how happy can you be? That in itself is fine, though certainly an overemphasis on property can impede happiness as well.
However, once we have decided - in this document and in the formation of this country - that a person can be property, then the document is compromised. It means that there in injustice built into the foundation of the nation, and that is going to lead to conflict and death and destruction.
It also means that the country has in its DNA a need and ability to be able to look at a person and see less of a person. We still haven't rooted that out.
That Article IV invokes equality and balance between the states is good, but the flaw that started in the very first Article is woven throughout the whole document.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
The Constitution - Article III
Article III, giving us information on the Judicial branch of government, is shorter than the sections on both Executive and Legislative. Part of this is a reminder that it is not only through the Constitution that things can be set forth.
For example, Article III tells us that there is a Supreme Court, and we know from Section 3 of Article I that there is a Chief Justice, but the number of justices is not given. We all know it's nine, it's been that way for as long as we can remember, but what we may not know is that the number is set in the United States Code (Title 28, Section 1).
One thing that is interesting is that Section 1 also refers to inferior courts that Congress can establish. Much of the legal system passes through county courthouses, and there is an appeals process there to state courts. However, there is also the a federal court system. It was something that I knew, but did not really think about until I was called to jury duty that was not reporting to the Washington County Courthouse, like I was used to, but instead to U.S. District Court in Downtown Portland.
Section 1 also refers to good behavior by the office holders, though it possibly could have used more teeth. Scalia was criticized for accepting travel on a private jet, and there have been similar criticisms of other justices, but there never seems to be any follow-up, and even in the inferior courts there is a fair amount of abuse that can happen. It is fair to say that the checks in place to balance the different branches may be less effective here.
Section 2 goes over the jurisdiction in cases. Cases that deal with maritime law, a conflict between states, or ambassadors - so often cases where there could be a question about what state or country would have authority, then it belongs under federal law. There is also the option for cases that have come up through the local systems to appeal to the federal courts. The ability to quickly settle which court will hear a case was something that could only help harmony between the states, which was one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation.
Section 2 also states that trial shall be by jury, unless for impeachment, and that trials will be within the state where the crime was committed, but still with a provision for if the crime was not committed within any specific state. (This is one good reason for the specific references to maritime law.)
Finally Section 3 gives some further definition on treason, both for what constitutes treason and the burden of proof. There must be two witnesses confirming the action, and it only consists of making war or giving aid or comfort to enemies. With the Revolutionary War so fresh in memory for the framers, it must have been important to specify that criticism of or disagreement with the government was not in itself treason. Those values would show through more in the drafting of the Bill of Rights.
For example, Article III tells us that there is a Supreme Court, and we know from Section 3 of Article I that there is a Chief Justice, but the number of justices is not given. We all know it's nine, it's been that way for as long as we can remember, but what we may not know is that the number is set in the United States Code (Title 28, Section 1).
One thing that is interesting is that Section 1 also refers to inferior courts that Congress can establish. Much of the legal system passes through county courthouses, and there is an appeals process there to state courts. However, there is also the a federal court system. It was something that I knew, but did not really think about until I was called to jury duty that was not reporting to the Washington County Courthouse, like I was used to, but instead to U.S. District Court in Downtown Portland.
Section 1 also refers to good behavior by the office holders, though it possibly could have used more teeth. Scalia was criticized for accepting travel on a private jet, and there have been similar criticisms of other justices, but there never seems to be any follow-up, and even in the inferior courts there is a fair amount of abuse that can happen. It is fair to say that the checks in place to balance the different branches may be less effective here.
Section 2 goes over the jurisdiction in cases. Cases that deal with maritime law, a conflict between states, or ambassadors - so often cases where there could be a question about what state or country would have authority, then it belongs under federal law. There is also the option for cases that have come up through the local systems to appeal to the federal courts. The ability to quickly settle which court will hear a case was something that could only help harmony between the states, which was one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation.
Section 2 also states that trial shall be by jury, unless for impeachment, and that trials will be within the state where the crime was committed, but still with a provision for if the crime was not committed within any specific state. (This is one good reason for the specific references to maritime law.)
Finally Section 3 gives some further definition on treason, both for what constitutes treason and the burden of proof. There must be two witnesses confirming the action, and it only consists of making war or giving aid or comfort to enemies. With the Revolutionary War so fresh in memory for the framers, it must have been important to specify that criticism of or disagreement with the government was not in itself treason. Those values would show through more in the drafting of the Bill of Rights.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
The Constitution - Article II
As promised, we now go over the executive branch of government.
There's less on duties and powers than for the legislative branch. That is the area with the most people, and it holds the most power, a balance that must have seemed appropriate to people who were done with monarchy.
Section 1 starts with information on the election process, the term of office and compensation, the oath of office, and what to do in the event of the death or removal of the president. One thing that was not specified is if a vice president stepping in after the death of the president then makes for an acting president or an actual president. That did not get tested until the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841. Despite disagreement from some senators, John Tyler took the oath of office and simply was president. That protocol held. Some clarification on succession was added in the 25th Amendment, but that was not ratified until 1967.
The process for selecting the vice president needed to be changed much sooner. Originally the vice president would be the presidential candidate with the second highest number of votes, which meant that rivals were suddenly serving together, and maybe there were some hard feelings. This process started changing almost immediately, first with the party selecting a mate, and gradually developing over the course of the Nineteenth Century to the current system.
The other part that is getting a fair amount of mention now is the specification that the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, with one prominent candidate having been born in Canada, though his mother was a US citizen (though possibly with dual citizenship so a Canadian citizen as well). The last I knew, some constitutional scholars thought he was eligible, and some didn't. He may not be doing well enough for it to matter, but if it does come up, many more people will be offering opinions.
Section 2 goes over the power to make treaties - with the advice and consent of the Senate - and the presidential role as Commander in Chief. This makes a large part of the presidential duties relate to our relations - in war and peace - with other countries. It also specifies the right of the president to appoint ambassadors, ministers, justices, and so on, as well as the power to grant pardons and reprieves in federal cases.
There are two important points here. One is that when people petition the president for pardons, it is often not within his power. That came up recently when several people were petitioning (perhaps ill-advisedly) for a pardon for the subject of a documentary. Even if that person should not be in jail, that does not fall under the president's powers. Generally state and especially county governments have more to do with who is in jail, and how long they stay.
In addition there is currently some debate over whether in an election year the president should appoint someone now or wait until after the election, with some people even saying that historically it has not been done. That is a bald-faced lie. While it is not common for a need for an appointment to happen in the last year of a term (because really, how often do you even get to appoint a new justice?), in those situations the president has not waited to appoint, and Congress has not waited to confirm.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/
Section 3 sets in place the State of the Union address, and also that the president shall give Congress recommendations as well. Also, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States".
That is more on appointments, but the presidential duty to see that the law is faithfully executed is where you might have a president instruct the Department of Justice to look into something or to quit defending something.
Section 4 gives a very brief statement about impeachment, so that there is a means of removing a president who is guilty of crimes, confirming that no one, including the president, is above the law. So when Nixon said that when he did something that made it legal because he was the president, that showed a poor understanding of his constitutional role.
That's Article II in a nutshell. Remember that you can read it at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html .
There's less on duties and powers than for the legislative branch. That is the area with the most people, and it holds the most power, a balance that must have seemed appropriate to people who were done with monarchy.
Section 1 starts with information on the election process, the term of office and compensation, the oath of office, and what to do in the event of the death or removal of the president. One thing that was not specified is if a vice president stepping in after the death of the president then makes for an acting president or an actual president. That did not get tested until the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841. Despite disagreement from some senators, John Tyler took the oath of office and simply was president. That protocol held. Some clarification on succession was added in the 25th Amendment, but that was not ratified until 1967.
The process for selecting the vice president needed to be changed much sooner. Originally the vice president would be the presidential candidate with the second highest number of votes, which meant that rivals were suddenly serving together, and maybe there were some hard feelings. This process started changing almost immediately, first with the party selecting a mate, and gradually developing over the course of the Nineteenth Century to the current system.
The other part that is getting a fair amount of mention now is the specification that the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, with one prominent candidate having been born in Canada, though his mother was a US citizen (though possibly with dual citizenship so a Canadian citizen as well). The last I knew, some constitutional scholars thought he was eligible, and some didn't. He may not be doing well enough for it to matter, but if it does come up, many more people will be offering opinions.
Section 2 goes over the power to make treaties - with the advice and consent of the Senate - and the presidential role as Commander in Chief. This makes a large part of the presidential duties relate to our relations - in war and peace - with other countries. It also specifies the right of the president to appoint ambassadors, ministers, justices, and so on, as well as the power to grant pardons and reprieves in federal cases.
There are two important points here. One is that when people petition the president for pardons, it is often not within his power. That came up recently when several people were petitioning (perhaps ill-advisedly) for a pardon for the subject of a documentary. Even if that person should not be in jail, that does not fall under the president's powers. Generally state and especially county governments have more to do with who is in jail, and how long they stay.
In addition there is currently some debate over whether in an election year the president should appoint someone now or wait until after the election, with some people even saying that historically it has not been done. That is a bald-faced lie. While it is not common for a need for an appointment to happen in the last year of a term (because really, how often do you even get to appoint a new justice?), in those situations the president has not waited to appoint, and Congress has not waited to confirm.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/
Section 3 sets in place the State of the Union address, and also that the president shall give Congress recommendations as well. Also, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States".
That is more on appointments, but the presidential duty to see that the law is faithfully executed is where you might have a president instruct the Department of Justice to look into something or to quit defending something.
Section 4 gives a very brief statement about impeachment, so that there is a means of removing a president who is guilty of crimes, confirming that no one, including the president, is above the law. So when Nixon said that when he did something that made it legal because he was the president, that showed a poor understanding of his constitutional role.
That's Article II in a nutshell. Remember that you can read it at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)