Why Bother With The Separation Of Powers?

Former Congressman Allen West reports on a masks-off statement by the scrofulous Charles Rangel:

It appears one Democrat member of Congress has decided to drop the mask and reveal who he really is. Unbelievably, Charlie Rangel told NY1 that “President Obama should drop the charade of democracy and rule directly through executive orders.” I mean, why not? After all, Rep. Rangel’s own relationship with following laws is fuzzy at best, given his problems with tax evasion.

According to Politicker, Rangel said “I’m gonna see why we can’t use executive orders for everything.”

This...person has been censured for tax evasion, has repeatedly accused political opponents of racism and worse, and is famous for ranting, after the 1994 Republican "wave" election that gave the GOP control of Congress, "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' any more. They say 'let's cut taxes.'" So even a complete Constitutional illiterate would be advised to "consider the source."

However, the Constitution isn't all that hard to read:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

[Constitution of the United States, Article II, Sections 2 and 3]

Those are the Constitutionally delegated powers of the president of these United States. He has not one iota of legislative or quasi-legislative power. Any orders he emits pertain only to how his subordinates -- i.e., those who work in the various Cabinet departments -- shall do their jobs.

That Rangel blithely dismisses the separation of the legislative from the executive power is typical of Rangel...at least, when there's a Democrat in the White House. But there's no excuse for any American who's attained the reading proficiency of an eighth-grader to put the least amount of stock in his notion.

Of course, the Constitution strikes most liberals as something to be heeded only when it suits their immediate purposes. In this, Rangel is merely displaying the colors of his pack. But what's remarkable is how the notion of executive orders as a Constitutional mechanism has affected even those respectful of that document:

Why not Charlie? Because of our pesky Constitution, which states executive orders are only to be used in case of national emergency, not as a means by which the executive branch circumvents the legislative branch, or our established process of checks and balances.

The executive order is not a Constitutional instrument. Nothing even resembling such a thing is mentioned in that document, nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in any of the Amendments. The notion that it can be used quasi-legislatively "in case of national emergency" -- Really, Colonel West? -- is one to which you'd get a lot of agreement today...but not from the Founding Fathers, the overwhelming majority of whom regarded the presidency as the office most dangerous to Americans' liberty.

Events such as this make plain how important it is that Americans become intimate with their founding documents once again, and with the overarching philosophy that animated them. Among other things, it might reduce the number of Charles Rangels accorded seats in Congress, where no one of such a mind properly belongs.