June 29, 2010
Taking Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan at her words
In the search for justices who are not activist from the bench, litmus tests are being cloaked to find the heart of potential nominees positions regarding controversial issues such as abortion, gay marriage and the federal government’s role in the expansion and centralization of more power under its control. Such rigorous questioning proposed of Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan will miss a key philosophical concern which has not been well studied on the concept of a “Presidential Administration” upon which her appointment should rest.
The role of our three government branches including the Executive, Legislative and Judicial was brought into question by Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General for the Obama Administration, who is his second Supreme Court nominee. Kagan wrote a disturbing view regarding Presidential Administration controls in the June, 2001 Harvard Review. There Kagan details the transformation of presidential policy and its use in defining his political agenda via “exercising directive authority over (independent agencies under his purview) and asserting personal ownership of their regulatory activity—demonstrating in the process against conventional wisdom, that enhanced presidential control over (the) administration can serve pro-regulatory objectives.” This trend started with the Reagan Administration and has continued through each subsequent presidency with a flavor reflective of the political party represented in this seat. Such is called “. . . presidential administration” which renders executive authority unto the president in a manner which potentially cripples the constitution’s inherent system of checks and balances.
Under this concept–the power of the president to appoint independent government agency heads does in some ways mitigate against their independence since it is an unwritten rule that most such appointments serve at the will of the president and upon acceptance of their role offer a signed resignation to be executed at the president’s discretion. Such a developed view of the Executive Branch warns of the potential for developing “The Imperial Presidency”. George Washington foresaw such possibilities when he refused more than two terms for a lesser man could under the Presidential Administration scenario institute the inklings of a dictatorship using Presidential Executive Orders with limited recourse from “We the people . . .”
Arguments regarding the possibility of the concept of Presidential Administration remain largely underdeveloped; however, it was an idea behind the nation’s system of checks and balances reflected in concerns that Congress have “broad power to insulate” independent agencies of government “from presidential activity” if they would use it. Given the view of activist presidents, nothing could stop the Obama Administration from granting amnesty to the 16 million illegal residents of this nation over the objection of its citizens short of impeachment or another civil war. [Information source -- Common Sense Conservative Prescriptions Solutions for what ails us, Fisher, 2010, publication pending].
Ensuring the proper checks and balances between the three branches of government is essential to our constitutional democracy. It is an exploration of this concept about which she has written extensively that Kagan deserves much scrutiny less we have a philosophical shift of the highest court faced with the same dilemmas of our Second Continental Congress trying to balance individual liberties and states rights against expanded federal powers which in the wrong hands could set us on the path to dictorial leadership vested in the executive branch and inoculated from the will of the people.
Dr. Ada M. Fisher is A Physician, licensed school teacher in math and science and previous County board of education member as well AS NC Republican national Committee Woman. Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; telephone (704) 637-6134 (704) 637-6134. DrFisher@Fishernchousedistrict77.com.
