|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
To order Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2009, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
About
Ivan W. Parkins: Dr.
Parkins is a retired professor of Political Science from Central Michigan
University. He received his PhD from
the University of Chicago and is a graduate of the United States Naval
Academy. Dr. Parkins served as a naval
officer during WWII aboard the battleship Alabama. He is a recent widower with three
daughters, 3 grand children and 2 great grand children. Dr. Parkins has written extensively, having
authored 3 books and a newspaper opinion column for many years. |
|
Front Page |
|
HOW SEPARATE OR REPRESENTATIVE ARE THE ELECTED BRANCHES? By Ivan W. Parkins The
Constitution of the United States, prior to changes, some in practice and
others added more formally, provided for some things quite similar to the
unwritten constitutions of our European forefathers. The Chief Executive was to be chosen by
electors, much as some European monarchs were. Members of a Senate (nobles) were chosen by
state legislatures. And
Representatives were popularly selected, but from what was then a quite
limited group of qualified voters.
Those distinct methods of selection provided some reason for believing
that the old concept of balance would apply here also.
What we have seen since 1789 are numerous changes in the spirit of the
Declaration of Independence’s “all men are created equal.” Now, nearly all
adult citizens, and some not so adult, are eligible to vote. And, all three elective branches of our
central government are chosen by only slightly different popular
processes. Furthermore, we expect all
branches to represent “the people.”
Actually, while our population remained much smaller and more
agricultural, while the vast oceans to our east and west remained formidable
barriers to major enemies, and while our economic and political relationships
with the rest of the world remained minimal, the traditional system worked
well enough.
Today, and since the beginning of the twentieth century, those
conditions are much changed.
Industrialization, plus the easy and safe travel and the instantaneous
communication that have accompanied it, make us far more of a player in
nearly every portion of the world.
Meanwhile, we have greatly advanced the technical means by which “the
people” can speak to power, but failed to make comparable improvements in the
institutions and procedures by which such communication is received and
registered. I.W.Parkins 22809 |
|
LOTS OF CHECKS; WHAT BALANCE? By Ivan W. Parkins
Our economic crisis? No, I’m
referring to our constitutional system.
We owe some of the vision, plus most of the words and syntax in our
Constitution to Gouverneur Morris. He
was the most frequent speaker in the Constitutional Convention. As a member of the committee assigned to
draft one document from numerous motions and amendments to motions, he
created one concise and mostly coherent summary in just a few days. Morris
(Gouverneur is his name and was never a title.) had many talents to offset
his funny name, withered arm, and wooden leg.
He is now a too little appreciated Founding Father.
Those among us who seek to attribute their check and balance theories
to the Constitution will find little explicit evidence in the document. Nor will they find a lot more in THE
FEDERALIST commentaries expounding upon it.
There are some checks in the legislative process and in that for
treaty ratification. But, in 1787 the
concept of balance in constitutions had, for more than two millennia, applied
chiefly to the representation of several social classes in separate branches
of the government—and not as equals.
King, Lords, and Commons is now the most familiar example.
At least from the time of Roman Tribunes, and extending through some
European monarchies, it was the executive who was expected to protect all of
a nation’s subjects. In colonial
America, and other parts of the British Empire, abuse of native peoples was
often by white settlers and done in violation of orders from the Crown or its
Governors. Something similar continued after America gained its independence,
but not enough central authority to really maintain the peace. It may explain in part Alexander Hamilton’s
contention that energy in the executive is the measure of good government.
Yes—even the mention of Hamilton often raises some popular notions of
“elitism.” That is ironic; Hamilton
was a “bastard,” grew up an orphan, and became one of the few Founders who
worked actively against slavery. It’s
just one small part of the maze that is our national history, as it too often
has been simplified for popular consumption. I.W.Parkins 22709 |
|
OUR VERY CONTROVERSIAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Controversies over our chief executives are older than the United
States. Governors of the several
original colonies were selected in a variety of ways, but increasingly by
Royal appointment. One original step
in the war for independence was replacing the Royal Governors. Popular confidence rested mainly in the
legislatures. As new state
constitutions were adopted, many gave to Governors terms of only two years
and those years with only minimal powers.
But, with legislatures in session only a small part of the time,
realities soon intervened. Who could
react effectively to an Indian raid, or to a new trade barrier raised by a
neighboring state?
Fortunately for both the design and the initial performance of the
office, George Washington was the obvious choice for our first
President. Also fortunate was the fact
that Gouverneur Morris, who had had a major role in creating the constitution
of New York and its strong executive, was able to do much the same thing for
the nation. Article II of The
Constitution of The United States assigns to the President broad powers and
imposes few limits other than his term of office. Now, it has generally been those Presidents
who used their powers boldly who have become our greatest political heroes. Often they have, in fact, served as
tribunes of the people.
John Locke, a favorite authority of our forefathers, says in his
Second Treatise on Civil Government: “
Many things there are that the law can by no means provide for, and those
must necessarily be left to the
discretion of him who has the executive power in his hands, to be ordered by
him as the public good and advantage shall require;”
I.W. Parkins 22709 |
|
THE PRESENT CRISIS By Ivan W. Parkins
None of the above page says much about any particular President or
about how particular Presidents should be judged. I hesitate to judge the incumbent before he
has even had time to adjust his vision to his new role. In that regard, I note that President
Truman, questioned about why he, after voting in the Senate against civil
rights legislation, chose to order integration of federal services, both
civil and military. Truman replied
that he had acquired a new and broader constituency. I remain hopeful that President Obama will
do similarly. I
am exceedingly skeptical of the capacity of Congress to improve upon
executive leadership. For one reason I
note that not so long ago a Republican President (Nixon), who seemed to be
winding down a war to our nation’s benefit, and who had just been reelected
by what is still the largest popular plurality of votes in the nation’s
history, was driven from office by a heavily Democrat Congress and
information media. I note also that
the following three Congresses, little restrained by executive leadership,
were Democrat by margins of 119 or more votes in the House and 17 of more
votes in the Senate. In that period
the Community Reinvestment Act, encouraging sub-prime mortgages, plus major
new limits on our intelligence and military services were enacted. Several of the participants in those
congressional actions are now committee chairmen in this Congress.
Our information media now show some signs of less partisan
blindness. Will the media now aid in
assuring us that changes are for the better? I.W. Parkins
22609 |
|
We know what happened to President Nixon, but
how much do we know about why? Nixon resigned rather
than risk a bitter and nationally divisive impeachment fight, which it
appeared that he would lose. Chief
among the charges pending against him was abuse of power. And, one of the most substantial items in
that charge was that he had impounded i.e. refused to spend, about half of
the funds which Congress had appropriated for Senator Muskie’s Clean Water
Act. Even the Supreme Court held
against the President in that matter. Years later, it
occurred to me that there should be new evidence re that charge. I checked THE STATISTICAL ABSTRACT for what
we actually did spend. With Nixon out
of the way, we spent just about what he had recommended. |
|
LETTER TO THE EDITOR, St. Petersburg Times,
2/23/90, St. Petersburg, Florida Re:
“Gorbachev borrowing U.S. model for democracy,” Feb. 12, by David Broder Let
us hope that Chairman Gorbachev understands what he borrows. For instance, many discussions of
presidential-congressional conflicts terminate in citations of our traditional
check and balance system. But, in 34
years of teaching American Government I never encountered a good analysis of
what the word “balance” means in the context.
It is my opinion that “balance” is chiefly a euphemism, added by
commentators after the Constitution was adopted and not really descriptive of
how our system works.
During the two millennia of Western political thought from Aristotle
through Montesquieu to John Adams, “balance” referred to a balance of the
social classes, each represented in a different branch of government. No doubt, that concept was relevant to the
diverse ways in which offices of our several federal branches were originally
filled. Now, however, we elect
presidents and senators as well as representatives, and we expect all
branches to represent all classes of people.
Very little use was made of the word “balance” by Hamilton, Madison,
and Jay in THE FEDERALIST. That term
does appear in my copy, but chiefly in remarks and subtitles added by later
editors.
Does “balance” really help one to understand how our system works, or
is it a euphemistic term for what is actually a check and checkmate system? |
|
Editors Note: Dr.
Parkins’s Grandson, Breton W. Hinkle, passed away unexpectedly on Feb. 14,
2009. His wife Jen, is a wonderful
woman, whom he loved with all his heart.
He was a graduate of Michigan State University. Bret was a United States Marine and had
faithfully served his country with honor and distinction. He will be terribly missed by family and friends. He was loved by all who knew him. He was
buried with military honors in Holland, MI. This issue is dedicated to him. See
Bret’s life story at
http://www.lifestorynet.com/memories/45526/ |