Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The three (or four) branches of the federal government are not co-equal

The hubub of late over Vice President Dick Cheney's notion that he's a separate branch of government unto himself has given rise to lots of talk about the "co-equal" status of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

You'll hear no such nonsense from The Rascal. No, I'm not taking Cheney's side in this matter. I, too, consider his posturing ridiculous. My disagreement, however, doesn't rest on any of this fiction about "co-equal" branches of government.

Four months ago, I noted here that the Founding Fathers did not create a system of co-equal branches of government. Rather, they intended for the legislative branch to be dominant, as is evidenced in the Federalist Papers and even in some of the arguments against ratification of the Constitution from people who would have preferred co-equal branches.

You'd think that my admonition in this regard would have settled the matter among all concerned. But, alas, too many people have not paid sufficient attention to me, which is not only personally galling but also deleterious to the cause of domestic tranquility in our great nation.


Henry said...

Rascal - Fine blog. Keep up the good work. Perhaps you should 'Coulterize' the blog a bit. Personal attacks, insults, etc... it might increase readership by the right wing Gestapo crowd. Also, have any historical information about the state of political discourse 100 years ago?

The Rascal said...

Henry: "Coulterize"? "Personal attacks"? "Insults"? You're mocking me, right? I've dispensed a fair amount of that sort of thing, haven't I? Perhaps I haven't laid it on thick enough to please you. As for the state of political discourse 100 years ago: Well, that was during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, whose idea of effective political discourse once reached the point where he referred to his successor, William Howard Taft, as a "fathead" and a "puzzlewit."

UCrawford said...


"Coulterize" the blog? By which you mean passing up logic and reason in your arguments so you can take cheap shots at your opponents instead of having real debate? What a wonderful idea...we honestly don't get enough of that in politics today. (sarcasm off)

Suggestions like that are why it's almost impossible to take most of today's liberals seriously...guys like you rarely have anything useful to add to the discussion.

Rascal, you're doing just fine as is...good post. Although if you're looking for suggestions, HaloScan's a much better comment engine than the one eblogger provides.

Henry said...

Ucrawford -
I was joking about 'Coulterizing' the blog. What I was trying to do was elicit from the Rascal his take on what passes for political discourse these days. The blog is excellent and it's too bad the Rascal isn't on the radio anymore.

So most liberals don't have anything to add to the discussion. Could it be because they aren't in agreement with your thinking?