Responsible Government

As long as an American President can avoid being convicted of a high crime by the U.S. Senate - and every one has so far - he can do pretty much whatever he wants in the Executive Branch, even to pushing past Constitutional limits on their power and activities with impunity, as my generation has seen on numerous occasions.

THIS IS MORE POWER THAN KING GEORGE III HAD IN 1776!  By that time in the evolution of British government, the King mostly had to take the advice of Ministers supported by Parliament.  The areas in which he could dictate policy on his own were few and shrinking.  As always, the King governed in Council; this has always been the Executive Branch of English government.  The Monarch's Privy Council was (and still is) made up of high administrative officials, political leaders, and (other) Ministers of the Crown - royal policy advisors for the different departments of government.  But beginning under George's dynasty, the House of Hanover (1700s-1800s), the Kings' choice of Ministers became influenced by their dealings with Parliament.  George's predecessors (both also named George) spoke little English and were frequently attending to the affairs of Hanover, their German homeland; so they established a tradition of needing to rely on others in their rule of Britain, hence Parliament's practical power grew, and that of the Crown/Executive shrank.

By contrast, the U.S. President only has a Cabinet of "Secretaries" whose job is to follow his orders, not the other way around! Politically speaking, in the United Kingdom, the Cabinet is now an extension of Parliament, while here, the Cabinet is still an extension of the President.

Why did the framers of the U.S. Constitution of 1787 allow for such a strong President, stronger than the King?  Some writers believe this was to counterbalance the federal Congress, and keep it from dominating the States too much.  If Congress could pass laws, the President could veto them or - within the law - shape how they were executed by his Branch of government.

But what they created was an elected Emperor, with Congress little more than a consultative assembly.  They may have overcompensated for the Articles of Confederation, which were perceived as too weak indeed.  They erred in logic: the way to keep Washington from getting too strong was not to create two strong federal branches, but to give them fewer powers.

What would Responsible Government do to the constitutional principle of checks and balances?  Redeem it, actually.  The President would retain his veto - which by definition would be exercised against Ministers' advice - and all administrative orders would still require his signature.  The Establishment tells us that these functions in the hands of other Monarchs and Presidents are "merely ceremonial" or formalities, but this is not correct.  There the job of the Head of State, as opposed to the Head of Government, is indeed symbolic - s/he represents the strictly national interest, over against the short-term political interests of the lawmakers.  The fact that these powers are rarely exercised may say more about how those countries' prime ministers restrain themselves in a system where they're accountable not only to the electorate but also to one special person, than about the powerlessness of that person, their Head of State.

Responsible Government sounds complicated, but I've drafted a Proposed Constitutional Amendment that, in a few words, would accomplish the change:

This is the barebones Responsible Government Amendment, but Americans might wish to consider other changes pursuant to it, such as: a longer term of office for the House of Representatives, for stability; the possibility of early elections if necessary; limits to the Senate's ability to veto legislation; Proportional Representation, so that a multi-party/coalition system could act as an additional check on the party in power; etc.
 
  Tiernan O Faolain, August 4, 2004