Political Forum

Do we make too much of a deal about the President of the United States? Does he wield too much power? Does the Congress? Have we as citizens given up our rightful powers and handed them to the National Government?

How many of the first 15 Presidents can you name without looking it up? Geo Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson...... I know more, but not in order. I believe that, besides the founding fathers, many of them are forgotten because they limited themselves to their constitutional duties and not more. We do not hear of much legislation passed in those early years because the nations people were active in electing their representatives to the newly formed republic.

What I am getting at is this: the federal government was designed to be very limited. I defer to the Federalist Papers on this point. They will make my case. (I'm on #15). Our Constitution lists very specific enumerated powers, which was designed to be a limiting factor, not a peephole into what grand things the Federal Government could accomplish.

My main point would have to be the following: If we elect Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, or even Mr. McCain to the Office of President, do not despair. As Brian Eschen said in another post, "God never leaves results up to us." Can they do damage? Yes, of course. Can they destroy the nation? Maybe. Can the destroy God's people? NO! The people still wield the power if they would only choose to use it. I would like to submit to discussion the fact that local elections are much more important than Federal, yet the Federal candidates are the only ones we pay attention to. It is also much easier to get elected to a local office. This is how our republic was designed. Power was exercised from the bottom up, not the top down, as it is today. "All that is needed for evil to prevail is for enough good men to do nothing!" The words of Edmund Burke ring true today. He knew the importance of the little guy getting involved.

Allow me to expound. Say you gather other Christians in your church and community and you all attend your local county/precinct conventions and get elected as delegates to the state convention and then to the national convention in September. You now have the power to change the Republican (or Democrat if you so choose) party platform at the local, state, and even national level. This is where party platforms are hammered out...in the smoky convention halls, by elected delegates. This can open doors to other offices if you so choose, or you can leave it at that. Basically, a relatively small, extremely motivated group of people can change the world. We saw it in 1776, and again in 1787.

I know this isn't as well organized as I intended, but I'd love to see some discussion on the original question. Do we make too much of a deal about the President of the United States?

The president is the Commander-in-chief and the wielder of the "red button". Aside from that, he's just a small guy in a big chair, begging the public to join him. Why does he beg? Why does he make speeches? We are the ones who decide the direction of the country. I would say you are correct in your analysis. We do make too much of a deal about the Presidents. I would just prefer to have someone vetoing naughty bills, as opposed to good ones. The Congress makes laws and the Supreme Court defines laws. Those two are the ones we need to look out for.

I would only make a deal about the next president, because I want someone who would appoint good Supreme Court Justices. It is in God's hands, yes, but I would still hope for someone that could appoint godly judges who would uphold the law.

Yes, that is one of the most important jobs the president has to appoint good supreme court judges.

Yes, that is one of the most important jobs the president has to appoint good supreme court judges.

All judicial nominees still have to be confirmed by the Senate. It had been largely ceremonial for many years, but recently (well, in the 80's) Ronald Reagan was forced to withdraw Robert Bork's nomination and replace him with Sandra Day O'Connor due to the fierce opposition by liberal democrats in the Senate. Unfortunately, I believe they torpedoed a good candidate, but if Conservatives get out the polls and elect tough conservatives to the 1/3 of the Senate seats up for grabs this year, Hillary and Obama wouldn't get a single judge through.

Vr'

Jeremy

I hear that they even make cabnet members get confirmed by the Senate. How stupid is that?

Sheesh.

True, I think sometimes we do make too big a deal about the president - esp. every four years. You have to have "good guys" all around to actually make any difference.

I think that local civil government is ripe for the picking and that Christians should focus most of their attention and efforts towards those positions of authority. Can you imagine what it would be like to have a bunch of Christians committed to obeying God and following the rule of law across this country. We would then be in a position to resist the tyranny of the higher civil authorities and hold them accountable for what they do (much like our forefathers did to England). This is my vision for where I live, which is why I am running for office this year.

Additionally, as Mike Winther likes to encourage us to do, we need to be reading the books that our forefathers read. Some of the most read books during the defensive War for Independence in 1776 were books like, Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford, A Vindication of Liberty Against Tyrants by Junius Brutus and The Law by Frederic Bastiat. The Bible that was brought over from Europe was not the King James Version but the Geneva Bible (the first "study Bible") which was full of footnotes from John Knox's congregation against the tyranny of man. The men who founded this nation understood that the greater authority was best to be held at the local level. As a result most "problems" were handled at the local level where rulers were more accountable.