November 17, 2014--Co-Equal?

Flipping channels the other morning in search of anything other than the local weather forecast and reports about gridlocked traffic, I paused for a moment on MSNBC to see how their post-election post-mortem was proceeding.

They had already concluded that there was no chance of anything bipartisan happening between a cranky Republican Congress and an equally grumpy Barack Obama, who was about to issue a series of executive orders to deal in part with our immigration mess.

John Boehner was sputtering that if the president did this the GOP would fight him "tooth and nail," some of his members gleefully chiming in in the background that this could lead to Obama's impeachment; while over in the Senate, about-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that if Obama signed those executive orders it would "be like waving a red flag in front of a bull" and could easily lead, McConnell threatened, to yet another government shutdown.

Boehner I ignored--he has his Tea Party members to contend with; but I took McConnell at his word because if there is anything he knows about it's bull.

One of the MSNBC panelists pointed out that Obama acting as promised would assure nothing gets done since, "in our system," the federal government is made up of "three co-equal parts" and unless there is some semblance of working together it will mean that more than the traffic will be gridlocked.

Really, I thought. Have the MSNBC folks read their Constitution recently?

In fact, in great detail, whatever we think of it, the Constitution goes to great length to make certain that the three branches of our government will be anything but equal or, if you prefer, co-equal. And to assure that the Congress, which at least theoretically most represents "the people," in fear of European-like monarchal tyranny or dominance by corrupt and unrepresentative courts, our Founders took care to structure things so that Congress would be preeminent.

Not the executive branch and not even the Supreme Court. In fact, creating the Supreme Court was an afterthought on the part of the Framers. That's how much they despised and feared the potential power of a corrupt judiciary. And so they severely limited its powers. As they did the presidency, again, for fear of tyranny.

Congress has the exclusive power to enact laws (forget executive orders which by their nature are constitutionally questionable--something we may see tested if Obama does his immigration thing) and once passed and approved the executive, like it or not, the president must enforce. Indeed, though bills passed by Congress must be approved by the president, if they are vetoed, the Congress still has the ultimate authority to enact them by voting to overturn that veto. And if the president refuses to follow the Constitution he can be impeached and removed from office. By Congress. As can Supreme Court and other federal judges. Again, solely by Congress. Only voters can get rid of even felonious or demagogic congressmen.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

What about the president's constitutional prerogatives as Commander in Chief? Doesn't that make him preeminent? Not really.

When the Constitution was written in 1787 the new republic didn't have a standing army and so there was very little for the Commander in Chief to command. In fact, the Framers were reluctant to agree to a standing federal militia or navy. That too they saw to be a threat to representative government. Again, looking toward Europe, it was the last thing they wanted.

It is only since the Second World War when, because of the advent of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and the speed with which they can be launched, that so much retaliatory power has accrued to the presidency. But, again with the necessary acquiescence of Congress. It is felt that the national security state that we have become requires such powers be granted to the president. But, if Congress disapproves of presidential military ventures it has the exclusive power of the purse--only Congress can authorize governmental spending.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court, it too is a bit less than supreme. True, for the most part, when they rule it becomes the so-called "law of the land." But they rule about very little and even if and when they do, if Congress does not like a ruling it can pass other similar laws designed to get around SCOTUS rulings and, if that fails, amend the Constitution. Admittedly this is a rare and arduous process, but still the power resides with the Congress (and the states) to change if they wish our most sacred document.

Again, this doesn't sound co-equal to me.

Like it or not, the structure of the government we have is not as viable as it was in the sleepier 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. But it is what we have. Governmental gridlock was not something to be avoided, but was a desired part of the process. A relatively weak and unintrusive federal government is what our Founders intentionally framed for us and though we now know how intrusive an unfettered government can be, because of checks and balances, an ineffective government with a dominant Congress is what we have. Just what was intended.

February 10, 2014--Hillary? Mitt? Bill? (Not that Bill)

We know Hillary's running.

There's a book just published, HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, that provides behind-the-scenes glimpses of her tenure as Secretary of State, a book that could almost be considered a neo-version of the classic "campaign biography." And then there is Hillary's forthcoming book, also largely about her days in the Obama administration.

This will have the HRC authors, Jonathan Allen and Amie Rarnes, making the rounds of the talk shows--coming to Morning Joe I am sure this week--and Hillary herself at the end of the year, taking time off from $200,000-a-pop appearances, also appearing everywhere. All just in time to launch the unofficial stage of her campaign for the presidency. The official announcement will occur during the spring/summer of 2015.

So that's settled. Hillary is a go and, maybe, as reported over the weekend, so is Joe Biden. But he trails Clinton by about 65 points in the latest polls--65 points!--and so, unless there is a looming Clinton scandal (which with them can never be fully ruled out), this plan of Biden's sounds masochistic.

Then, what about the other side? What's happening with the Republicans?

Most dramatic and politically meaningful is the decline and soon-to-be-seen fall of Chris Christie. He was universally acknowledged to be Hillary's most potent opponent because of his ability to attract independent and undecided voters.

But with Christie ostensibly out of the race (no senior Republicans wants to be seen in the same room with him), who has a chance to secure the nomination and can plausibly beat Hillary in 2016?

Rand Paul has a chance to be nominated by the Tea Party and Libertarian GOP base, but in a general election against Hillary would fare as badly as Goldwater did against LBJ in 1964. Mike Huckabee also looks like a base-pandering contender but also would have general election problems--women, for example, will not forget his recent dumb comments about their "out-of-control libidos."

Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio still look like boy scouts. The half-dozen Republican governors talked about as possible candidates are all excruciatingly borrrring. Think Scott Walker and  Bobby Jindal. Jeb Bush has the Bush problem--he's the brother of George (and that's a problem) and Mama Bush has been saying enough already with the Bushes. (And, to be fair and balanced, enough already with the Clintons--more about that in a moment.) Newt, Michele, Rick and Rick, and--my personal favorite from last time around, Herman Cain--have all been there and done that.

In the face of this undistinguished field, the Harold Stassen of the 21st century (young folks google him to find out who he was), Mitt Romney, it is reported, is again beginning to crank things up.

He apparently will be talking very soon with wife Ann to see if she's OK with another campaign. Mitt's 10 or 12 or 15 sons are apparently all on board. The Romneys are finished renovating their California house, with its twin car elevators, and all Mrs. R's dressage horses and Cadillacs are in good shape, so, what the heck, the money's there, life is short, why not.

So with the prospect of Hillary versus Romney I'm having a back-to-the-past moment.

I think Barbara Bush is right--enough with the Bushes, Clintons, and, I'll add, Romneys. We need some outside-the-box candidates to help us think in new ways about how to solve our problems, grow our economy, and restore our place in the world.

Thus, I'm thinking about Bill. Not that Bill. He's inside the box and thankfully the Constitution will not allow him to run again. Not to mention Hillary who would have a few objections. In there cosmology, it's her turn. And then Chelsea's and then . . .

Get Barbara's and my point?

The Bill I'm thinking about is Bill Gates.

Beginning in a college dorm room (OK, it was at Harvard) he built one of the largest and most successful companies ever. Talk about being a job-creator. With all of Microsoft's limitations, its products changed the world for all time. And now as the operational head of the world's largest foundation, he has been intimately involved in education reform, health care, resource conservation, renewable energy, and many other things we as a country, as a society need to pay attention to.

I'm also interested in a president who has real experience running things, not just a Senate staff of five, and is not timid about holding people accountable. Ask Microsoft senior staff about Gate's leadership and fierce efforts to hold them accountable for their work. If people were to screw up in a Gate's administration they wouldn't be retained for months after messing up and then allowed to resign so they can claim to want to spend more time with their families. Enough of that.

We need more than change we can believe in.