Key Takeaways:
– Recent Supreme Court ruling has potentially raised stakes, granting presidential immunity for many official actions.
– Increasing power and authority in presidency goes against America’s founding principles of checks and balances.
– The unchecked growth of executive power contributes significantly to the surge in election ruthlessness and potential dangers tied to electing the wrong president.
– Rising concern over unchecked gun rights and its association with amplified consequences due to enhanced firearm technology.
The Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Immunity
In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that the American Presidency is immune to many crimes potentially committed via official powers. Derived from a constitution crafted by the forefathers who valiantly attempted to restrict individual power, this decision raises several important questions. The chief among them is whether concentrating so much power in the hands of one person is a wise move.
Critics argue that this immunity ruling underscores a prevalent flaw in our system – an overreliance on the probity and wisdom of a single individual. Disturbingly, the decision implies revisiting a key lesson learned from English history. The founders reverently admired King William III’s leadership during England’s Glorious Revolution, yet vehemently criticized his power accumulation.
From Limited Power to Overflowing Authority
Our founders’ goal was to limit power concentration in any one person to prevent potential abuse and corruption. Drafting the U.S. Constitution, they put in place several checks and balances on the president’s power. However, the contemporary presidency depicts a way more forceful figure, wielding far more authority than the founders envisaged. This lopsided allocation of power can be alarming and potentially dangerous.
The complexity of modern society has admittedly expanded the role and authority of the federal government. Despite this, the staggering growth of the executive branch would almost certainly distress our founding fathers. The president’s role as the nation’s commander-in-chief is one example. While seemingly conferring vast authority, it’s relevant to recall that the initial U.S. had no standing army. War powers were explicitly assigned to Congress, not an individual. Yet today, through a succession of wars, we have critically ceded this power to the White House.
Gun Safety and the Increase in Decision Stakes
The stakes tied to human decisions have been dramatically raised over the years, manifested in gun safety concerns. With more powerful firearms available for public purchase, the consequences of wrong decisions have skyrocketed. Arguably, even if the founders meant to protect individual rights to weapons, they surely didn’t envisage this vast scope of artillery.
Increased Risks with Presidential Elections
Concentrating power in the White House has significantly escalated the stakes tied to presidential elections. Objectively, selecting the wrong president has become an increasingly perilous exercise. It is driving a surge in ruthlessness during campaigns and certification of votes, and inciting partisan behavior.
Conclusion: Revisiting Checks and Balances
It is essential to reevaluate and curb laws and practices that concentrate power in a few individuals. We should revert to the founders’ principles of checks and balances to prevent misuse of authority. This reiteration of principles can help prepare the nation to handle fallibility in human beings and prevent potential disastrous outcomes.