Written evidence submitted by Anthony Chieppa (AMC 37)

          As an American citizen I have been living my life under a written law of the land known as the Constitution of the United States of America. This document is as much as a symbolic representation of our nation’s core values and beliefs from its origin as it is the physical manuscript that all laws, rights and legal practices are based around in this country. The basic blueprint of the Constitutional is that it sets up what the fundamental human rights are for all citizens and explains how these rights are administered through the process of government. The framers of the document outlined a system of three governmental institutions that set to place checks and balance on another to effectively prevent the effects of power corruption. The three separate, yet equal, branches of government that the shapers of American established were the executive, legislative and judicial.

           The executive branch’s most famous, and most well known representative, is the President of the United States and his various appointed staff. This branch is in charge of carrying out the laws of the land to make certain every citizen is able to exercise their natural rights as an American citizen. The next branch, Legislative, is made up of Congress, a bicameral policy making institution which is responsible mainly for the creation of laws but also delegated certain governmental powers which hold checks and balance against the president and the courts. Finally, the last intuition is the Judicial Branch whose responsibility it is to regulate the constitutionality of laws or making sure they are sound in the eyes of the written Constitution.

          I believe the first question of writing out a set declaration of the ultimate laws of the land is what kind of power structure are you as a country looking to embody to properly execute your governmental duties? What official powers should you delegate to which institution? Should theses powers be broad in interpretation by whatever person/body it is granted to, or should they be specific in nature to allow for a narrowed execution often ending up in limited growth of the office? These questions were all concerns posed by the Founding Fathers during the various meetings held while drafting the Constitution of the United States. In American history the Constitution was very much a trial for the new nation, the blueprints for the executive office is one of the most vague and broad article in the document mainly because the early framers were not exactly sure what they had intended for the office in the long run.

          The biggest misconception about American politics is the ideology that the President of the United States (the executive branch) has overwhelming authority over both the legislative and judicial branch. This understanding of American politics is simply untrue and would outrage the Founding Fathers if they were to have heard this statement for themselves. Initially the role of the executive branch was to be fairly weak compared to its legislative counterpart. After succumbing from British rule during the colonization period, newly independent Americans set to distance themselves from the notion of having a single authority rule over the many.

          The founders found it appropriate to establish the office of the president as having limited powers and to only be much more of an office clerk rather than the leader of the nation. The article in the Constitution regarding the office of the president is not even listed first in the document. Article I of the Constitutional outlines and duties and powers delegated to Congress, while Article II provides us the legal definition of the office of the presidency. This placement in the Constitution has metaphorical significance in the commitment that the founding fathers molded early American politics away from a strong centralized government with a powerful executive at the hands of the law. The only powers of the President of the United States is provided by the Constitution is the ability to veto legislation, which can be overridden with a 2/3 majority from Congress. The President also has the ability to nominate federal judges along with construct his own cabinet, both of which needs to be approved by the Senate. The office is provided the title of Commander in Chief of the armed forced but not allowed to declare war. And finally the President has the ability to give out legal pardons but his often times has no effect of the wellbeing of the nation overall. On paper the office of the President is devastatingly much more limited than to what the office is known by according to modern standards. This phenomena of overwhelming presidential influence on American politics stems from leadership roles of Presidents during the beginning of the United State’s status as a world power noticeably by the turn of the 20th century. 
          It is in my personal opinion that the course of over 200 years the office has been able to shape itself due to a lack of vision for the long-term intentions of the office when first constructed by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. But due to the United Kingdom having deeply rich historic governmental foundations, it would probably be wise to, metaphorically, not fix what is not broken. But if there is any time to adjust any concerns about the office of the executive role either by way of limiting or expanding the office, it would be best to address these issues while the opportunity to efficiently accredit powers under a new written document presents itself. But just like each new generation, there is an evolution of state whether it is a changing societal philosophy, a technological revolution or any unprecedented occurrences and there comes to questions whether a lasting written document should account for these instances.
          Stated earlier, the Foundation Fathers never really planned for the years ahead. They were in a fragile state of trying to get their current society up and running with a promising set of laws to take into effect immediately. The founders unintentionally set up a government that largely shaped itself when there were unprecedented matters that occurred due to the ever changing global environment. The office of the President was created as weak to dispel the reoccurrence of a single authoritative power similar to the British rulers that had previously been in power, but the office became so much bigger than then the Constitution intended.

          The President is the face of the nation; this individual is our nation’s global representative and is expected to govern mighty yet with unyielding compassion for his people. The issue at hand is that, technically, the President is just in office to enforce the laws Congress passes. He/She has no authority to wage war or even to approve treaties with other nations. The increasingly globalized world gave the President of the United States much more power than ever intended that the checks and balance system of the United States has been totally undermined when it comes to the expansion of presidential power. Presidents in modern times have used this overlooking of clear unconstitutional acts as a way to engage military attacks and occupations overseas without legal consequences.

           Congress has handed the president much of the war powers simply because modern history has placed more of a leadership role with the office now as opposed to the beginning of the Constitution. The question this raises is at what point do we as a nation, or other nations who have adopted this system, put our foot down and attempt to regulate this overexpansion of the executive branch and the clear shrinking authority of the legislative? What makes matters worse is there is a no resolution of political conflicts between the two branches because no one really knows who’s to blame. There’s a blatant issue regarding the undermining of authority between all three branches of government.  Technically, Congress is the one with the power but the President is the person who has been executing the acts with no opposition from the legislator. This tug-of-war has created more problems than solutions and has halted important national issues which are still being dragged on to this day. 
          The system of checks and balances to ensure that three braches of government comes together to form one cohesive leading body of government is a nice idea on theory but modern execution of the colonial era established ideology has failed the system in more ways than one. This is not to say that the system is ineffective in the nation but the handling of power delegations and consequences for crossing them seem to be nearly non-existent in a world where power growth for one branch has monstrously outweighed the other two “equal” branches. Should a constitution be flexible to such a drastic change in social relations both within the nation and with foreign entities? In my opinion, yes any written constitution should not be written for the “now” but should be an extension of longevity to ensure the nation is both fitted within the needs of the present but also accounting for inevitable needs/changes in the future. This is difficult because it demands some interpretations to be loose in order to mold itself to a changing political and social dynamic, spanning future generation. At the same time they must also be firm and concise when it comes to the duties, guidelines and consequences of each and every written article. 
          Overall the presence of a written Constitution provides a solid foundation for any nation because it is the direct source of all things lawful in their land. But the key to perfecting a ironclad written document of law is to be direct yet ambiguous in crafting the language. As paradoxical as it sounds there is a fine balance that allows for the document to be relevant for modern day interpretation but allows for future interpretation to be concise without comprising the authority of any branch of government in favor of another. There also needs to be a strict adherence to constitutional law because the nation will then create a norm of blatantly overstepping powers, thus engendering chaos in the political sphere filled with confusion of authority and blame. But the document is established to legitimize the nation’s authority as a functioning and personalized manifesto for that specific country. It should embody the country’s personal ideologies and through well crafted language, scribe these beliefs into a national constitution that will last and inspire generations to come.