Who's President today? Let me check...

Great Debates
1

Not directly inspired by the election dispute in Florida, but rather taking advantage of the situation, even as critics of the Electoral College are.

Why do we care who’s President of the U.S.? Well, whether we think that it is right or wrong that it should be so, we will all concede that POTUS is a powerful office.

I will take the position that it is wrong. Accepting for the sake of argument that the powers exercised by the Feral…oops, I mean Federal government should in fact be possessed and exercised by it, should the lion’s share of those powers be exercised by one person who holds (even if it be by the Will of the People™) the office of President? I think not, and I see no reason why it must be so.

The office of POTUS, of course, can no more be abolished at the stroke of a pen than could Athens be built in a day, as Remus said to Romulus (such is theoretically possible, but essentially impossible in today’s political climate). The effort of whittling that office down can, however, and indeed must begin with a single pass of the blade. I propose the following amendment as that first stroke:

**A Proposed Amendment

Section 1. There shall be elected each year, and for terms of one year, beginning and ending at noon on 20 January, four Controllers of the United States.

Section 2. Elections shall be by all persons qualified to vote for the most numerous house of the legislature in each state; and each individual shall have as many votes as there are Controllers to be elected, to be cast cumulatively. A majority, divided by the number of Controllers to be elected, of votes cast shall be required to elect; and, if any of these offices go unfilled because of this provision, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States shall choose as many Controllers as necessary, each Representative having one vote.

Section 3. No person shall be eligible to the office of Controller who has not attained to the age of thirty years, or has held or been elected to the office of Controller in the past ten years, or has held or been elected to any other office under this Constitution, save that of Senator ex officio, in the past five years.

Section 4. Any vacancy in the number of Controllers, caused by death, disqualification, or any means whatsoever, shall by filled by the House of Representatives, each Representative having one vote.

Section 5. A Controller shall, by virtue of having been elected to that office, sit in the Senate of the Congress of the United States, with all rights and responsibilities of other Senators, for a term of twelve years; but such privilege shall not be granted to any Controller chosen by the House of Representatives. Such office shall be deemed to begin immediately upon the expiration of his term as Controller.

Section 6. Each Controller shall, at the direction of the Congress or by his own initiative, be empowered to audit the accounts of any officer, employee, or instrumentality of the United States.

Section 7. Any interference with the prerogatives of a Controller as defined by this Constitution shall be an offence requiring impeachment where appropriate, or an offence requiring dismissal with the loss of all emoluments otherwise; and refusal by appropriate authorities to dismiss any person(s) found so guilty shall itself be deemed an offence requiring impeachment or dismissal.

Section 8. Controllers shall be subject to impeachment by the House of Represenatives, and trial thereof by the Senate; and conviction shall entail, in addition to other penalties established by law, disqualification from the offices of Controller and Senator.**

(The source from which I stole this idea will be obvious.)

2

It’s a totally absurd notion to assert that the powers of the federal executive are in the hands of one man; usually, the President has at best a limited effect on federal agencies, which seem, like most bureaucratic institutions to have inertia of their own. The EPA is a classic example; there is only a relatively small difference in how it works now compared to how it worked under Reagan and Bush.

But I digress from the reason to make this post. An assertion in defense of this proposal needs more to offer than a bland dismissal of the current executive branch composition as exists in the OP. Offer us reasons to change, then explain how your change solves those difficulties, and we might find it worthwhile to actually address your proposal.

3

But, this is not caused by a constitutional limit on the presidential powers. A president may, in theory, choose to exercise a great deal of control and authority over a federal agency; they just don’t seem to wish to. Maybe out of apathy, or ignorance, or they may even trust the individual cabinet secretaries to exercise their own will.

I do, however, agree with your last statement, Mr. Young; a compelling reason to change must be brought forth.

I also have a couple questions on the proposed amendment. Firstly, and I believe I’m correct here, this (eventually) adds 48 more senators to the existing one hundred. Correct? What I mean to as is, this does not abolish the existing upper chamber, right?

Secondly, what are the powers of the controllers, other than their senatorial powers? Are they charged with approving and vetoing duly passed legislation? If so, what is the mechanism? If not, we are merely adding 4 at-large senators, or super-senators, if you will. I would see their function as such, under Section Six, to be little different than a committee chairman’s current function.

4

DSYoungEsq writes:

Indeed, that the “alphabet soup” agencies are currently out of control due to their bureaucratic nature is hardly a denial of the power inherent in the Presidency. One might also contend that, should a President (or other politician – we are all familiar, I think, with situations where the person with nominal power is not the one with actual power) assume autocratic powers, there is not a “real” dictatorship because the power is in fact diffused among Federal employees. I do not think that this argument would find much support, however; as well contend that the current electoral situation represents the “real” will of the people because armed partisans have not arisen and successfully forced their vision on the country.

As you will likely know, the President is reckoned to have broad authority to interpret (although that word is not used in the U.S. Constitution) and modify the law through the use of executive orders. Although not legislaton in a technical sense, they have been held by the courts to have the force of law.

Now, I will concede that my proposed amendment makes only a small change in the Constitutional and actual position of the Presidency (indeed, following the line of thought that you have set forth in your post, it might be argued that it would actually increase the President’s power, as tending to limit the ability of bureaucratic employees to act independently and with lack of legal responsibility). OTOH, I believe that I said in the OP:

Now, if we wish to discuss this from the other end of the course; i.e., set forth what seems good, and then indicate what can be done today, what has to wait until next year, and what must be postponed until the rising generation has had the opportunity to absorb the notion that the President might actually have Constitutional rivals with independent powers, then I can certainly do so.

UncleBeer writes:

Correct. It is not my intention to abolish th Senate, nor do I think that this amendment does so.

As I noted in the last paragraph of my response to DSYoungEsq, this is not the only change that I would propose. Indeed, I freely admit that the addition of ex-Controllers to the Senate is essentially a “toothing-stone” for future changes; possibly that appointment ought to be included in a later proposed change.

As to the propsed function of the office of Controller, I will accept evidence that this is the legal and Constitutional function of the legislature, perhaps delegated to a committee and its chairman as a matter of practical necessity. It does not seem to me, however, that this function is being performed with any reguularity or effectiveness; the addition of a Constitutional office may be of no effect, of course, but I would think that putting it directly in the Constitution would serve as notice that it is not to be lightly ignored.