Civics lesson: President Obama is letting the legislative branch legislate
Correct me if I’m wrong. After all, civics class was way back in 9th grade and I’m a baby boomer. You do the math.
But if I remember correctly, the United States government is made up of three branches: judicial, legislative and executive. The judicial branch consists of the courts, culminating in the Supreme Court. The legislative branch is the Congress, both Senate and House of Representatives. The executive branch is the cabinet and their staff, headed by the president.
I only point this out because Chris Matthews said on the Today Show that Obama has done better on his reaction to the earthquake disaster in Haiti than he’s doing on the reform of the health care system. On Haiti, "He’s been there first. .. He’s been a leader."
I’ve been hearing a lot of complaints about Obama and health reform. Mostly that either a) it’s HIS health reform bill that HE wrote, or b) that he hasn’t done enough in promoting this reform.
Which brings me back to the three branches of government.
The job of the legislative branch is to legislate, i.e. pass the laws that govern this country. The job of the executive branch is to execute those laws, not to dictate them. The whole purpose of Obama’s stepping back on this issue was to let the legislative branch legislate. Sure, he gave them a list of what he’d like to see in that bill; I believe it was a one-page document. But he did not dictate to them what the definitive law had to be. Perhaps over-optimistically, he hoped that the Congressional members would vote across the aisle, in the best interests of those who elected them. Not vote along party lines.
His predecessor, President Bush, chose to circumvent this three-branch system on several occasions, passing executive orders while Congress was in recess. He also chose to sign off on - and therefore implement - only those parts of laws Congress DID pass if they followed his agenda. Both are violations of the Constitution.
Call me a bleeding heart, but I far prefer a president who attempts to work with Congress to pass the laws that he feels are important, and accepts that he may not get all he wants, over a president who just dictates what he wants. I don’t think that means Obama isn’t a leader, but it definitely means he’s not a dictator.
A graduate of the University of Michigan and the Sorbonne, Sandy Schopbach divides her time between Paris and Ann Arbor. She has worked as a photographer, author, and freelance journalist, and also managed the now-defunct Bird of Paradise jazz club for a number of years. Her website is www.sandyschopbach.com.
Comments
Diagenes
Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
Part of Pres. Obama's problem is that he lets only the far left of his party leadership write the bills. He does not insist that moderate Dems have a hand in crafting legislation. The result is the Republicans are shut out completely and the moderates are coerced with bribes like what happened in Nebraska and Louisianna. Oh by the way are two Senators are not being left out of the cash for votes program. In the latest round of bidding for health care votes Blue Cross of MI. was given an exemption from Federal regulation in the health care reform effort. Another problem for Pres. Obama is that House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are incompetent, hard left and extremely partisan people. This alienates all GOP and most moderate Dems. Unlike LBJ, Obama has no real history of legislating. LBJ was able to pass the great society programs because he was an experienced Senate leader before becoming President. That level of exprience is sorely lacking in both Congree and the White House. The result is poorly crafted bills that go nowhere.