The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set newsroompolicies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
Gordon L. Weil formerly wrote for the Washington Post and other newspapers, served on the U.S. Senate and EU staffs, headed Maine state agencies and was a Harpswell selectman.
Political chatter focuses these days on whether we risk trading democracy for authoritarian rule. But the record shows we are well past that.
These days, many critical government decisions are made by a single person. In a democracy, such a person is too powerful. Not that a single person controls our entire government, but one-person rule keeps growing in all three branches of government. Lord Acton, a British leader, once concluded: “Power corrupts.”
The prime example right now is U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican. He blocks the appointments of all top Armed Forces leaders, trying to force the Defense Department to change its abortion policy. He places a “hold” on nominations, abusing the power of delay accorded to each senator.
When the people elect senators, they may think that all are equal. After all, each has the same vote. But the senators willingly turn their power over to a single person. Because each of them may someday want to exercise the same power, they willingly allow Tuberville excessive clout. Who cares that this naked exercise of power endangers the country?
More broadly, the Senate majority leader, a single person, controls the Senate agenda and which appointments can be decided. When serving as the GOP majority boss, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell denied a presidential Supreme Court appointee even the slightest consideration. The nomination would have failed anyway if it came to a vote, but individual senators would have been accountable.
Why shouldn’t all senators adopt the Senate agenda? Why not do away with the “hold”? Why not require confirmation votes?
When the Constitution was written, the Framers worried about giving the president the powers of a king. Some even suggested a committee should run the executive branch. Believing that George Washington, sure to be the first president, would set the tone for executive restraint, they placed few limits on presidential power.
The presidential veto reflected almost the same independent power of the British king with only the high hurdle of a two-thirds override by each house of Congress. That made the president the equal of Congress in the legislative process. Merely threatening a veto gives the president power to make the laws.
Congress could force vetoes to be issued rather than yielding to threats. That way, decisions would be made in the open and reduce the sense of government by backroom deals. The president would be more accountable.
Facing more complex issues, Congress has transferred more of its control to the executive branch. Presidents can spend vast sums and issue governmental rules. Congress could recover some of its responsibilities by spending more time on policy and less on campaign fundraising.
Presidents should also refrain from acting like judges. They take on the authority to sign new laws, while saying they will not enforce parts of them, because they believe they are not constitutional. The Constitution clearly does not give the president such a power.
Like presidents, governors also have veto power. In Maine, Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a bill that would simply ask the voters for their decision. In effect, she substituted her judgment for giving the people their say. If something was amiss in the resulting law, the Legislature could fix it. Vetoing popular choice goes too far.
The courts may carry one-person rule to the greatest extreme. In 2000, by a one justice majority, the Supreme Court determined the winner of the presidential election. The action of five non-elected judges, when the Constitution sets up a process for the Congress to decide (and the result would have likely been the same), was a pure and historic power grab, harming the court’s reputation.
A single U.S. district court judge, sitting alone in a small city, can issue an order blocking actions of the federal government across the country. One judge in Amarillo, Texas, banned nationally an approved practice for distributing abortion medication. That this is absurd should be obvious, but the judicial system, giving itself more power, allows it.
Some judges sit alone on the bench in a small area, so random selection of judges becomes a myth. Plaintiffs can sue to halt federal actions in any district court, so they may select a solo judge likely to rule favorably.
These actions are all inroads on the power of the people and of their elected representatives, essential players in a democratic republic. No matter how divided people are on specific issues, they might find some common ground in protecting the procedures that are supposed to ensure that government does not disdain the people and roll over them.
Now Donald Trump promises to bring the federal government almost entirely under his personal control if he is returned to the White House. It would be all about his power not the people’s.
Here’s Lord Acton’s full warning: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
