Congress: a ‘puppet’ of the POTUS?

Unfortunately, some in Congress appear to believe that they are there merely to serve the wishes of the POTUS.  No, they are to challenge the POTUS (as needed) and be a CHECK and a BALANCE against the POTUS (the Executive Branch).

Note –> Blogger has modified the format in places and includes the HOUSE in its understanding of the article — in other words, what goes for the Senate (in this case) goes for the House.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441710/senate-judicial-confirmations-executive-branch-does-not-have-final-say

The Framers stipulated this power-sharing arrangement for a reason. Indeed, it is critical to the success of our political system.

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 faced a daunting challenge: to create a government powerful enough to preserve order but not so powerful that it threatened individual liberty. Their solution was to divvy up governmental powers among three branches of government — a system of checks and balances designed to keep any one branch from gaining more power than another.

In Federalist 51, James Madison urged that, to keep the powers separate, each branch “should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.”

Every senator and representative swears to “support and defend the Constitution.” This solemn oath obligates them to adhere to a simple standard: to faithfully apply the text of the Constitution and federal statutes as they are written (not as someone else might prefer they were written), and by interpreting that text in accordance with its original public meaning — i.e., how that text would have been understood by the public at the time it was passed — even if that produces an outcome distasteful to the nominee.

Unfortunately, some in Congress appear to believe that they are there merely to serve the wishes of the POTUS.  No, they are to challenge the POTUS (as needed) and be a CHECK and a BALANCE against the POTUS (the Executive Branch).

All in Congress, regardless of party, should keep this in mind and independently and rigorously evaluate Presidential proposals and the Presidential Agenda, with a view to their fidelity to their “proper” role — which is the key to sound judging.

Case in point:  Devin Nunes has a job, which is to represent the American PEOPLE — not the American POTUS.  His job is *not* to provide aid and cover and support and whatever else to take the ‘heat’ off the POTUS when the POTUS comes under fire for potential/alleged wrongdoing — potential, possible CRIMES, like TREASON.  No!  Devin Nunes’ job was to DO HIS JOB without aiding and abetting DT in the process.  How is this not an OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (?) — when the LEADER of the INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE tells the SUBJECT of the INVESTIGATION stuff that not even the COMMITTEE GETS TO KNOW.  This, as they say, stinks to high heaven.

— James Wallner, a Heritage Foundation Group vice president, leads the think tank’s research program. John G. Malcolm directs Heritage’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s