Letters to the Editor
-
Saturday morning and I am lost in Constitutional confusion. Help Please!
Reading this thread this morning was both enlightening and confusing. Admittedly, I am weak in Constitutional Law so I pose these questions in complete innocence. Are the arguments made and rebutted in this thread really that tenuous? Has the Constitution been rendered virtually useless due to the Executive and Legislative Branch’s interpretation for convenience? Is it really possible to read one sentence in the Constitution and derive two different implied meanings? Is it possible that the justices of the Supreme Court can decide law based on their interpretation of the Constitution as well as other considerations? One letter writer maintains that decisions are made by justices with an ear to what is agreeable to the greater public at any given point in time. To quote: “They (the justices) get a feel (of) what will produce approbation from their peers, and the ideas they here (sp.) talking to spouses, friends, children, and parents will all form the context in which they interpret cases.” I understand why this might make sense in some ways but is this not a dilution of constitutional law? Is not using prior precedent setting cases to deliberate and decide subsequent more contemporary cases further diluting Constitutional law?
This whole notion of Presidential veto power is confusing to me as well. Assuming that Congress holds the power to fund the military, does not the President’s power to veto ultimately trump the Congress? Assuming the Congress has the power to authorize and de-authorize funding wars or military actions, does not the President’s power to veto said funding again trump the Congress? In effect, does the veto not give the President control of the purse strings?
The whole issue of protecting presidential confidants, advisors, cabinet members and their staff under the umbrella of protecting national security seems to undermine the function and responsibility of congressional oversight. How convenient it must be for this president to cite that we are at war and therefore you cannot question me or anyone I have had conversations or communications with about anything as it could reveal information about how we operate in our war against terror. In this presidency, ostensibly anything and everything can be construed to somehow be linked to war against terror.
It seems to me that an argument can be made that the President has near dictatorial power. Again, I am honestly confused by all this as it pertains to the tenets of the Constitution? What kind of government do we really have today? Can anyone explain to me how we can honestly call our government a democracy? I am having a hard time understanding how the Constitution has any relevance on the way this country is actually governed?
I am troubled that this country is dissolving into anarchy based on the apparent ability of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government to use and interpret Constitutional law for personal empowerment. If they were serving the majority of Americans best interest it would be less alarming but under the current circumstances, I think there is an unprecedented level of abuse of power. This thread is probably dead but I would sure like some answers to my questions and help in clearing my confusion.