Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush and the Constitution

The Supreme Court received advice from constitutional scholar, civil rights analyst, and national educator George W. Bush. Yes, that George W. Bush.

The same one who just after the November 2000 general election while his political future was still undecided, gagged on a basic premise of the Constitution, telling the nation, “The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.”

The same one who has frequently used his own intelligence as an example of why he’s a strong supporter of educational reform. “You teach a child to read,” said the President in 2001, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.” The same one, the proud parent of twin social butterflies, who told a CNBC audience, “Laura and I really don’t realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective.” The Oil-in-Chief millionaire who explained, “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”

This is the president who so eloquently told an audience in St. Louis, Mo., “If affirmative action means what I just described, what I’m for, then I’m for it.” The same George W. Bush who summed up his political and Constitutional philosophy as “I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe–I believe what I believe is right.”

Combining his knowledge of law, education, and affirmative action, President Bush advised the Supreme Court that an admissions policy at the University of Michigan law school is “divisive, unfair, and impossible to square with the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court will rule in March on that issue that could significantly modify or even overturn a quarter-century of affirmative action programs. While the basis of affirmative action is to provide disenfranchised minorities the opportunities they have traditionally been denied by a majority culture, the University of Michigan interpretation appears to extend the original concepts by allowing certain groups extensive “points” on the admissions tests on the basis of their race, while excluding admissions to highly-qualified and high-achieving Whites. The Michigan interpretation may very well be divisive, unfair, and even racist. The conservative base of the Republican party wants the end of all affirmative action. President Bush, however, has supported limited affirmative action programs, although no one will ever confuse him with fellow Southerners Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton who used the power of their office to force entitlement programs for all Americans.

But, the Constitutional issue isn’t whether George W. Bush is right, but that he is trying to use the power of the executive branch to influence the judicial branch.

Presidents, through their attorneys general and White House solicitors, often file legal briefs with the federal courts to influence decisions, actions entirely within the Constitution.

All presidents use liaison offices to lobby Congress to either kill legislation the President doesn’t want or to move legislation the President does want. The President’s staff even influence Congress to change policies and leaders. This became even clearer when President Bush and his senior staff decided that Trent Lott was an embarrassment to the Republican party and successfully had him removed as Senate majority leader.

But, the Constitution is clear about the separation of powers. When the Founding Fathers established the nation and its Constitution, they established the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as separate and independent. The system of checks and balances, which date to ancient Greece, was established to prevent the majority of the nation’s leaders from ruling with dictatorial authority.

The first major test was Marbury v. Madison (1803) in which the Supreme Court forcefully ruled that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department [not the legislative or executive branches] to say what the law is.” Several Supreme Court decisions during the past 200 years have reaffirmed the separation of powers and the recognition that the “encroaching power” of both the legislative and executive branches upon the Constitutional independence of the Court system and upon each other must not be tolerated.

During the past two years we have seen what could be a Constitutional crisis, one in which all three branches–the Republican-dominated Congress, the Republican executive branch, and the Republican-dominated Supreme Court–may be involved. It began with the Supreme Court voting 5-4, along political lines, to hand the presidency to Mr. Bush. It was extended by public comments by a grateful President who may now believe he can issue “opinions” about how that Court should vote. If this encroachment doesn’t end, we will soon see a Supreme Court that will rule that the attorney general has every right to cut apart the nation’s civil liberties and its First Amendment rights.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, primary writers of documents that established the nation, had different political philosophies, and constantly fought over numerous issues. But, among the many areas they did agree upon was a need for the Bill of Rights–and a separation of powers.

WALT BRASCH, a national award-winning reporter and editor, is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University. He is the author of 13 books, including The Press and the State, and the current book, The Joy of Sax: America During the Bill Clinton Era. You may contact him through his web-site www.walterbrasch.com.

He can be reached at: brasch@ptd.net

 

More articles by:

Walter Brasch is an award-winning social issues journalist. His latest book is Fracking Pennsylvania, an analysis of the history, economics, and politics of fracking, as well as its environmental and health effects.

October 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall
Ipek S. Burnett
The Assault on The New Colossus: Trump’s Threat to Close the U.S.-Mexican Border
Mary Troy Johnston
The War on Terror is the Reign of Terror
Maximilian Werner
The Rhetoric and Reality of Death by Grizzly
David Macaray
Teamsters, Hells Angels, and Self-Determination
Jeffrey Sommers
“No People, Big Problem”: Democracy and Its Discontents In Latvia
Dean Baker
Looking for the Next Crisis: the Not Very Scary World of CLOs
Binoy Kampmark
Leaking for Change: ASIO, Jakarta, and Australia’s Jerusalem Problem
Chris Wright
The Necessity of “Lesser-Evil” Voting
Muhammad Othman
Daunting Challenge for Activists: The Cook Customer “Connection”
Don Fitz
A Debate for Auditor: What the Papers Wouldn’t Say
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail