This Election Wouldn't Be So Important If We Just Followed The Constitution

The strongest argument Trump apologists can muster for their man has consistently been, “At least he’s not Hillary!” Similarly, one of the strongest arguments in favor of Clinton has consistently been, “At least she’s not Donald Trump!”

Both sides say that this presidential election could be one of the most consequential in American history, and with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court, the expansion of the regulatory and welfare state, and the potential continuation of Obama-style liberal policies and executive actions all at stake, both sides have a point.

But the real question—and yet one not being asked—should be, “Why is this election so important?” Why is the partisan affiliation of the President, or his ideological background, of such vital importance? Why so much attention upon the filling of a single office?

No President, Democrat or Republican, should exert the sort of power and influence over the direction of the country that the media and popular opinion now attribute to the office. The simple fact is that no single presidential election should be so enormously consequential in the life of the nation.

The Constitution, as has been endlessly repeated during the Age of Obama, limits presidential power. Congress is designed to be most responsive to the people, and is therefore delegated most direct authority over domestic concerns. The president, while serving as the sole face of America in foreign affairs and holding significant unilateral power in matters of national security, must still consult with Congress on the direction of the nation.

On everything from health care to immigration, many of the most popular debate topics are framed as if the President has singular authority: "What would you do to fix _____?" But the president's primary responsibility is to sign or veto bills passed by Congress, and enforce those which do become law. Apart from his role as Commander in Chief, and immediate issues of national security, there is little he can do unilaterally, particularly in domestic affairs. The President was intended to be the enforcer of the law, not its author.

Nor, as Barack Obama needs to constantly be told, is there a clause in the Constitution which allows a president to assume monarchical powers should Congress fail to act on any given problem. He can encourage them to do so, but he cannot take binding action on his own. Many of the questions at these presidential debates seem to either forget or ignore this basic principle of American government—at the end of the day, while important, a single presidential election shouldn't be so impactful. It was only in the past century—a trend begun by Wilson, expanded by FDR, and brought into its own by Obama—that presidents began to drastically exceed their mandates.

Donald Trump has no constitutional power to single-handedly build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Hillary Clinton has no power to implement a public option for health insurance or “make college more affordable.” But now, thanks to Obama and the presidents who came before, they think they do, and will attempt to make it so.