The Constitution and Presidents

I recently finished a book, Nine Presidents Who Screwed Up America.  It was interesting.  I agreed with some of the author's assessments, but questioned some as well.  Regardless, it was worth reading to once again challenge some of my beliefs.

A major point is that many Presidents, even those usually considered "good" or even "great," have violated the Constitution and their oaths to uphold it.  In many instances, he makes a compelling argument.

I am, I suppose, at least a limited proponent of "originalism," that is, interpretation of the Constitution based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the document.  But there are problems with such a view, I think.  That isn't to say that the Constitution has been subverted, by Congress, by the Supremes, and, esp, by Presidents.  It surely has. 

For instance, the Constitution gives Congress the authority "to declare war."  It's pretty clear.  Yet, the Presidents, in their roles as Commanders-in-Chief, have used US forces in other nations more than 200 times--more than 200 times!  Obviously, in event of a sudden attack, the President should have the power to use troops for defense of the country.  Waiting for Congress to act......  Heh Heh.  (Even the December 8, 1941 Congressional vote to declare war on Japan, after the Pearl Harbor attack, was not unanimous.)  How many of those 200+ instances was the US directly under attack or in danger?  For that matter, what direct threat did the North Koreans or North Vietnamese pose to the nation (allies aside, perhaps a discussion for another time).

But consider that the United States today is a far, far different place than in 1787.  The times have changed beyond the imaginations of the Founders, perhaps with the exceptions of Franklin and Jefferson.  Would those Constitutional ideas of 1787, alone and without expansion, have helped solve the problems of 200 or 100 or even 50 years later?  Which of the Founders could have anticipated automobiles, airplanes, computers, television, and all the other modern stuff?  And, what in the Constitution allowed dealing with slavery, women's suffrage, and citizenship of Indians?  Nothing, that is, nothing until amendments were added in the former two instances.

At the very least, some expansion of original intent ("a living document?") seems necessary, doesn't it?

Many if not most of the Founders were followers of the Enlightenment.  In addition to natural law and reason, one of the three tenets of Enlightenment thinkers was progress.  If the Founders, then, believed in progress, would they not have approved of expansion of their document?  And, none other than Madison didn't take too long to re-form his views on this Constitution.  In fact, he started to change them at the Convention.

Now, I understand the dangers in some of what I've written above.  And I am critical of some Presidents who have acted perhaps to expand the Constitution.  I surely agree with the author than some of our Presidents have "screwed America" with their actions, "unConstitutional" ones according to him.  I know folks will disagree with me on some of these, esp after what they've been taught in their school classrooms from teachers and textbooks.  I think F. Roosevelt, Wilson, and L. Johnson fit into this category.  Even if I'm willing to conceded that their hearts were in the right place (and I'm not), the long-term effects of these Presidents were deleterious.  If nothing else, they did violate the Founders' principles of limited government, federalism, and one or two others.  (Yes, I know that Hamilton was willing to do that almost immediately.)

But the many uses of executive orders and executive agreements, by Presidents of every party have often been catastrophic.  Frequently they have been ways to get around Congress (and even the states), circumventing principles of checks and balances (Czechs and Norwegians?) and federalism.
This has led to what has been called "The Imperial Presidency," something cautioned about by the Founders (well, again, not Hamilton!).

Yet another question arose as I read the book.  The author lumps Lincoln along with Jackson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc.  Hmmm......  I am concerned about using the government, namely "unconstitutional" Presidential actions (according to the author, with whom I often agree), to right obvious moral wrongs.  Note the Civil War and slavery.  Regarding Lincoln, should the South have been allowed to secede and form its own nation, preserving slavery in the process?  Lincoln thought not and, obviously, was willing to fight a war to prevent that.  "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"  Of course, his original intent, as he himself stated, was to keep the Union together.  Only later did the abolition of slavery become a goal. 

That said, imagine, once the Industrial Revolution hit its full stride, how impoverished the Confederate States of American would have been compared to the US.  What problems would that have created?  War?  By either side?  Would the South, now independent, have abandoned slavery?  Look how long and hard southern states fought integration.  Does anyone really think so?  Should, in the name of "original intent," the southern states have been allowed to continue their institution of enslaving people?  (That slavery might have died of its own weight is an interesting question.)

So, were Lincoln's "unconstitutional actions" more justified than those of T. and F. Roosevelt, Wilson, L. Johnson, and others?  Were all of the circumstances equal in perils?  Perhaps illogically and inconsistently, I justify Lincoln's actions and, indeed, applaud them, while criticizing the overreaches of FDR, LBJ, etc.

This also brings up how Presidents are evaluated.  It seems those rated "Great" and "Near Great" are those who did something.  Those rated far lower are often those Presidents who did little, that is, didn't "do something."  But what if that "something" resulted in bad outcomes, esp long-term?  "Doing something" is not synonymous with "great."  FDR, TR, Wilson, LBJ, Jackson, and others are considered "great" or "near great" because they "did something."  Others, such as Calvin Coolidge, have been rated as "below average" or worse because they didn't "do something."  In fact, they followed their oaths to uphold the Constitution, not reinterpret it.  (Read the last two biogs of Coolidge.  His reputation, maybe, is being resurrected.  How long, if ever, will that be reflected in history textbooks and with history teachers?)  History is replete (I know, I know, but how many chances do we get to use the word "replete?") with examples of leaders "doing something" that led to catastrophe.  Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to do nothing at all.

I just finished another book, a humorous one on grammar, that urged close proofreading of e-mails, letters, blogs, etc.  I agree, but I am far too tired this evening to do so.  Please forgive any typos or such mistakes.