Constitution Day 2009 Speech: “The Presidency in the Constitution”

Our school has a Constitution Day celebration every Sept. 17.  I’ve given a brief speech for our 2007, 2008, and 2009 ceremonies.  I thought that I would post them here, too.  This was the one that I gave today:

Our past three presidents have inspired both intense devotion from their admirers and intense condemnation from their detractors.  Compare, for example, the joyous celebrations in Chicago’s Grant Park after President Obama’s election with the fiery rhetoric of his critics.  Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have had their presidencies and their policies called illegitimate, immoral, illegal, dishonest, and disgraceful by their critics, while they have enjoyed praise from their supporters that often reaches dizzying heights.

This has certainly been the case before in our history.  Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, almost always ranked as our nation’s greatest chief executives, heard criticisms that may surprise us when we read them today.  But to have such polarization around three presidents in a row suggests that historian Andrew Bacevich’s description of the presidency in the modern period is quite accurate.  Since the election of John F. Kennedy, he says,

the occupant of the White House has become a combination of demigod, father figure and, inevitably, the betrayer of inflated hopes. Pope. Pop star. Scold. Scapegoat. Crisis manager. Commander in Chief. Agenda settler. Moral philosopher. Interpreter of the nation’s charisma. Object of veneration. And the butt of jokes. All rolled into one.

On Constitution Day, though, it’s worth taking a look at the basis for the presidency.  Article II of our Constitution, which describes the presidency, is fairly short, especially in comparison to the description of Congress in Article I, where the major powers of the federal government are discussed.  The duties and powers of the president are vitally important, but they are also relatively few: acting as commander in chief of the armed forces, running the executive branch, granting pardons, making treaties, and appointing officials and Supreme Court justices.  Congress, rather than the president, seems to be the star of the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers that address the presidency also give the impression that the president, while powerful, would not be the center of attention.  Alexander Hamilton famously argued for “energy in the executive” in Federalist Paper No. 70, but at the same time he tried to persuade his readers that this president would not be another King George III.

Now, my points here are not a call to return to a more innocent age, where the balance between the branches of government was perfect.  Whatever age we chose, the inhabitants would probably be surprised that we considered their time so innocent.  Our powerful presidency reflects that times have changed since the 1700s.  America is a world power with a complex economy, and in many ways the more powerful presidency has probably been a good thing.

But some perspective from our history is valuable, too.  Knowing the intentions of the people who put together our system of government helps us to understand how this system plays out today.  And so I think that it’s good to remember two things.

First, the president is the head of just one of three branches of the federal government.  We’ve all learned this at some point, even if many of us forget.  No matter what other powers Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have, they can’t make laws and they can’t settle disputes over laws.  The Constitution separates these powers between three branches.  And yet very few people vote when it’s not a presidential election.  Andrew Bacevich, who I mentioned before, warns us that too much focus on presidential elections diminishes the importance of the other branches of government.  We ought to remind ourselves of the roles of the other branches of government and understand how they impact our lives.

Second, the federal government is only one layer of authority provided for in the Constitution.  State and local governments affect our lives in many ways that the president never can.

So, on Constitution Day, it’s worth remembering that while the American presidency ranks among the most powerful offices in the world, politics and government are about much than the heroes or villains, sinners or saints, that have occupied the White House.  It’s something that their most devoted supporters and their loudest critics should think about too.



  1. Great speeches. Thanks for posting these! I didn’t know your school celebrated Constitution Day. How did that happen? Is this common amongst school campuses?

    IMHO, local issues should be far more important to our lives than federal issues, but I fear it is perpetually compelling to solve our problems by central authorities, and our representatives (including the president) are similarly compelled to incorporate more and more within their domain. To not use power is a difficult thing.

    It’s far easier to divert money from an impersonal, coerced common pot than to continually re-raise it for individual causes. It’s far easier to set good intentioned laws centrally than to deal with diversity or the failures of liberty decentrally. Health insurance is a good recent example, both in terms of the constitutionality of mandating coverage and the interstate compatibility issues.

    I am impressed that anybody celebrates Constitution Day, insofar as it is a direct reminder of our rights, our founders, and the intended limitations of government and, in your speech in particular, the power of the president. Bush has received flack for expanding the president’s power, and he deserves a good part of it, but it seems we have been on this road for a long time.

  2. Kevin, we talked a bit about this in person. One of the big keys is, as you said, “To not use power is a difficult thing.” Once we’ve taken the constitutional restraints off of the government, things do keep getting more centralized.

    I’d love to read De Toqueville’s “Democracy in America” someday, but a friend told me that De Toqueville writes that local issues were first on people’s minds in the 1830s. This seems like a healthier way to look at things. Plus, the more we look to the federal government to solve everything, the more cultural power we give it.

    I think that there are certain things that only the federal government can do that are probably beyond what the founders envisioned. But restoring some kind of balance seems necessary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s