source:  lewrockwell

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

August 7, 2024

Since the so-called presidential “debate,” it has been impossible for people to ignore what was already sufficiently evident. Biden is indeed brain-dead. But people are asking the wrong questions in response to this. They want to know, “If a president becomes incapacitated, how can he be removed? How can we make sure that presidential candidates are mentally fit for office? Should candidates be required to pass cognitive tests?”

These aren’t bad questions in themselves, but they neglect a much more important question. Why should we have a powerful president at all? We see the salience of this question in the Ukraine war. Biden insists on an aggressive policy toward Russia that risks nuclear war. As the great Dr. Ron Paul has put it, “Decades of US sanctions placed on any country that fails to do what Washington demands have backfired and led to the emergence of a block of countries united in their resistance to American dictates. Being ‘tough’ on less-powerful countries may work…until it doesn’t. That’s where we are today.”

Would Trump be better? Dr. Paul does not think so: “Despite Donald Trump’s sober and accurate warning that Joe Biden has taken us to the brink of World War III, his solution to the problem is doing more of the same. His stated foreign policy seems to be that were he in office the rest of the world would not dare do anything against his will. . . He would have been so tough that Russian president Vladimir Putin would never have dared to invade Ukraine, he claimed. He would have been so tough that Hamas would never have dared attack Israel on October 7th. It’s only Joe Biden’s ‘weakness’ that leads to these disastrous foreign policy outcomes.”

What we need to ask is, “Why should the fate of the world depend on the decisions of one man, competent or not? Why should anyone’s finger be on the nuclear button?”

There’s an “obvious” answer to this question that we need to reject.  This answer is that America may be confronted with an extreme emergency that calls for an immediate response. What if Russia or China launched a nuclear attack on America? Wouldn’t the president have to respond? And if not the president, who else?

The answer to this is that only an aggressive policy of nuclear confrontation would get us into this situation. If America followed a policy of complete non-intervention, if we didn’t have a “foreign policy” at all, why would other nations attack us? If the answer to this is that these nations want to conquer our territory, they would find this a difficult undertaking—-if in fact the residents of a particular territory wanted to fight.

But what if other countries do launch a nuclear attack on us? Don’t “we” have to respond? Why do we? Wouldn’t a counterattack just raise the danger of the complete annihilation of life on earth?

But, you may say, even if this is right, what has this got to do with whether we have a strong president? Shouldn’t we just say that the president should follow a non-interventionist policy? This misses the point. It shouldn’t be up to one individual, however well-intentioned, to determine whether we are on a course for nuclear extinction, even if that person chooses the right way. And someone who chooses correctly can always change his mind.

The choice between war and peace is the most important issue, but it isn’t the only one. It shouldn’t be up to the president to decide whether we have a sound monetary system, based on the gold standard and no fractional reserve banking. And it shouldn’t be up to the Fed or any group of so-called “experts.” There should be a fixed policy that can’t be overridden by anybody.

But it isn’t enough to get rid of the strong president. The “deep state” has to go too. It’s especially important to eliminate the “security” agencies, like the CIA and the FBI. These get us into wars. As Ron Paul has said, “We do not need the FBI and CIA and other federal agencies viewing us as the enemy and attacking our Constitution. End the Fed…and End the Federal Bureau of Investigation!”

At the time the Constitution was being adopted, there was a great deal of concern over whether the president would have too much power. Opponents of the Constitution said that he would, and supporters of the Constitution said he wouldn’t But everybody agreed that a strong president was a danger. (Alexander Hamilton didn’t, but he kept his private opinions to himself.)

For example, here is what “Brutus,” one of the leading Anti-Federalists, said about the president and the executive branch under the new Constitution: “It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world.” The renowned orator Patrick Henry said, “Besides the expenses of maintaining the Senate and other house in as much splendor as they please, there is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers — the powers of a king. He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence; so that the whole of our property may be taken by this American government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure.”

The anti-Federalists were right. But if we end the strong executive, aren’t we jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Without a strong president, Congress is supreme. Is it better to have 500 rulers than just one? The short answer is “yes”. It is much harder to get a large body of men to agree on something than it is to convince one person. Also, without a strong executive, even a united Congress could not enforce any laws. But, you may wonder, don’t we need some laws? Even if we do, the likelihood that laws will be bad is so great that it’s better to have no laws at all. Of course, the ideal solution would be libertarian anarcho-capitalism. Pending this, however, it’s better to rest power in Congress, not the president.

Let’s discuss another way to rein in a strong president. The president shouldn’t be treated as “above the law.” People should be able to prosecute him both civilly and criminally, for his crimes. The president is not “immune,” whatever the Supreme Court might say. According to fifteen authorities,  “The historians’ brief argues that Trump’s claim of criminal immunity would transform the presidency into a monarchy—exactly what the Framers of the Constitution sought to avoid. It explains that presidential immunity for crimes is contrary to the Framers’ deep-seated, antimonarchical sentiment.  The Framers instead understood presidents to be accountable to the people and to the laws, and explicitly recognized that criminal prosecution would be one way among several to hold them accountable.”

Of course, these must be genuine law violations, not fake “crimes” like ‘insurrection.” We need more insurrections, like that of the heroic January 6 protestors at the Capitol.

Let’s do everything we can to end the strong presidency!