Today the Torch of Tyranny^TM will be passed from George Bush to Barack Obama. There will be many parties, plenty of speeches and far too much pointless news coverage of both. There will also, most likely, be many questions asked.  But I have only one question: why do we need a President, anyway?

This question most typically arises after I’ve been told that “someone has to be President”.  Unfortunately, despite posing the question to dozens of people over decades I have yet to receive a decent answer.  The vast majority of the answers come down to: well, who would handle the duties of The Office if we did not have a President.  Of course, few of these people can actually list these duties.  So I’ve returned to the beginning: The United States Constitution.

Article Two of the Constitution covers the Executive Branch.  Sections one and four deal with putting people into the office and removing them from it, so all of the President’s duties are covered in sections two and three-

• The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…
  • In other words, the President is in charge of the military.  Since the United States military has not been used to actually defend the United States since the Mexican-American War ended in 1848, and there  are no countries that are both capable and interested in invading the United States, I don’t see why we need a military leader.
• …he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…
  • Since these “executive Departments” are not listed in the Constitution I don’t see why it’s vital that they all report to one person.  Why not simply let their current heads be the final word.  Besides, this clause doesn’t give him any real power over these Departments.  It only declares that they must submit a report to him whenever he so desires.
• …and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States , except in Cases of Impeachment.
  • Why must the President be the final arbiter of pardons?  It seems the judges themselves could do this job just as easily, or some form of independent panel.  The power to pardon is, after all, widely judged to be the most abused power of the Executive branch.



• He shall have Power, … to make Treaties, … and he shall nominate, and … shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…
  • Considering each of the “powers” granted in this clause must be approved by Congress it certainly seems such things could be handled by an individual or committee chosen by Congress as well.
• The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate
  • Modern communication has made this a pointless power.  Since such Vacancies would occur doing Recess there would be plenty of time for the states represented to fill these seats on their own.
• He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…
  • Refer above to the section on “executive Departments”. We can dissolve two “duties” with one action by having these department heads report directly to Congress.



• …he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;
  • So, he can call Congress into session and tell them when they can go home (assuming they can’t decide for themselves). Seems like a pretty pointless and largely ceremonial power to me.
  • And he’s the guy who “receives” foreign leaders. Ditto the ‘ceremonial power’ portion above.
• he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
  • I’m not even sure what this means. Doesn’t the Judicial Branch decide if laws are “faithfully executed”?
  • And since the phrase “Officers of the United States” is not used in any other article of the Constitution it seems fairly meaningless as well.

So, there you have it.  The President of the United States has a grand total of 11 duties or job responsibilities, none of which actually seem very vital.  So would anyone care to defend this “highest of offices”?  What, exactly, makes the President of the United  States the “most powerful man in the world:?

Post from: Philaahzophy

Why Do We Need A President, Anyway?

• Saying Goodbye To King George In Style - January 2, 2009 - 5 common tags
• Why Do We Pay The President Of The United States? - November 8, 2008 - 3 common tags
• Who Knew Fox News Hired Intelligent Correspondents? - February 11, 2008 - 3 common tags
• What Would Martin Luther King Say Today? - January 12, 2009 - 3 common tags
• USMC Major General declares “War Is Just A Racket” – in 1933! - August 30, 2007 - 3 common tags

Had he lived, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have turned 80 years old this coming Thursday.

If you are called to be a street sweeper, sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, “Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”

That is, by far, my favorite Martin Luther King quote.  In fact, it’s one of my favorite quotes of all time, by anyone.  And it is that philosophy that I honor on the third Monday of January each year. Martin Luther King clearly inspired millions (of all backgrounds) and had a massive impact on not only the United States, but on the world.  But I’m left wondering what he would have to say about the America of today.  As I wrote in honor of MLK’s birthday last year, 40 years after his assassination, Americans are still slaves.  This year, I’d like to focus on the issues that made Martin Luther King famous: civil rights and the advancement of blacks in American culture.

In 1939 Martin Luther King was a 10 year old Atlanta resident who had already traveled to Europe and had sung with his church choir at the opening of Gone With The Wind.  Meanwhile, roughly 87 percent of blacks in America were living in poverty. By the time Measure of Man was published in 1959 (still years before the Albany movement, Birmingham, and the March on Washington), poverty amongst black families had dropped a full 40 points to 47 percent and the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled.

1963 brought the March on Washington and the famous “I Have A Dream” speech which will be quoted with such abandon in the next couple of weeks, 1964 was, of course, the Civil Rights Act, 1965 saw “Bloody Sundy” in Montgomery, AL (often cited as the turning point for the civil rights movemement in the United States – King was notably absent, BTW), this was followed numerous failures and cancelled marches in Chicago and then, in March 1968, the assassination of Martin Luther King at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN.  The following year the poverty rate amongst blacks in America had fallen to roughly 32 percent (where it remained well in to the 1990s).

Which all leads me to question just why there’s a national holiday for this man.  Of course, we have a strange way of celebrating it…

In 1990 President George Bush (the first) invaded Iraq on Martin Luther King’s birthday.The day after America observes MLK’s 80th birthday the first black President will be inaugurated. King would, no doubt, be proud. But let us not forget that Barack Obama will not only continue the current invasion of Iraq, but has also come out in support of National Slavery!

Is this what Martin Luther King was fighting for?  Is this what you are honoring on this national holiday devoted to him?  Honestly, I think next Monday will just be another day of my distancing myself from as much of the celebration as possible.

Post from: Philaahzophy

What Would Martin Luther King Say Today?

• 40 Years Later and We’re All Still Slaves - January 20, 2008 - 10 common tags
• Ask An Anarchist: What About “The Poor” - January 9, 2009 - 5 common tags
• Sales Tax and Couponing For Cash - October 10, 2007 - 4 common tags
• I’m Now A Silver AMPlifier for Free Talk Live! - September 19, 2008 - 4 common tags
• Are Any Agorists Actually Active? - January 6, 2008 - 4 common tags

In less than three weeks we’ll be bidding adieu to King George W. Bush. And I intend to wish him a fond farewell and honor his reign as our leader in style – with the t-shirt you see pictured at left.  That is, of course, assuming that we don’t have some sort of “National Emergency” in the next few weeks that would leave us in far too unstable a position to effect a change in leadership.
I mean, he’s ignored the U.S. Constitution for the last eight years, why should he be bothered to follow it just because Barack wants to take the mantle of power? Of course, then this wonderful shirt from Crazy Dog t-shirts would still be appropriate.

But inauguration day isn’t the only event that’s covered by Crazy Dog shirts.  They’ve got something for everyone including homages to the ’90s with an extensive line of shirts inspired by the Seinfeld television show; the ’80s with their Chuck Norris line and A-Team t’s; and the ’70s with the Smurfs and a selection of breakfast cereal mascots. They’ve even got a sale going on right now with $4 shipping to help ease your own personal economic crisis.

But nothing beats good ol’ King George. In the words of America’s most popular modern philosopher, Homer Simpson: “It’s funny because it’s true.”

Post from: Philaahzophy

Saying Goodbye To King George In Style

• Why Do We Need A President, Anyway? - January 20, 2009 - 5 common tags
• What Would Martin Luther King Say Today? - January 12, 2009 - 3 common tags
• Rules Are For Citizens, Not Candidates! - August 28, 2008 - 3 common tags
• Why Do We Pay The President Of The United States? - November 8, 2008 - 2 common tags
• Who Knew Fox News Hired Intelligent Correspondents? - February 11, 2008 - 2 common tags

Earlier this week roughly 21% of the population of the United States (65,340,608 out of 305,186,613) decided that Barack Obama should be the next President. I bring this up not to point out (once again) that even within the supposed Democracy it’s far from the majority that rules. No, mine is an economic question. As we all know Obama ran on a platform of “change”. Well, who thinks he’d be willing to institute a genuine change and reject his Presidential salary of $400,000? I certainly don’t expect that to happen, though it would be nice to see a “servant of the people” get compensated with more servant like numbers.

Don’t get me wrong.  I understand that the President has a tough job.  Hell, even the Constitution states that the president should be paid-

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

By the way, according to a legal dictionary (the Constitution is a legal document, after all) ‘emolument’ means: “All wages, benefits or other benefits received as compensation for holding an office or employment“.

Now, few among us want to see the most powerful man in the world distracted from that job by worrying how he’s going to pay the power bill.  But the fact of the matter is that the President doesn’t pay his power bill.  We do.  He doesn’t even pay rent while living in the White House (which costs roughly $4 million per year to maintain).  Does that sound like emolument to you?  How about the fact that whenever he wants to go anywhere he gets in a chauffeur driven limousine (both paid for by taxpayers) and driven to the airport to board Air Force One, which cost us roughly $325 Million!  Four four years, this man pays for nothing while earning $400,000 per year.

Still think the President deserves that salary?  Well then I’ll leave you with this final note from BeyondBooks.com-

Finally, the perks do not end when a President leaves the White House. It’s estimated that the minimum amount President Clinton’s pension and staff will cost U.S. taxpayers if his life span is average is $6,072,000.

Post from: Philaahzophy

Why Do We Pay The President Of The United States?

• Why Do We Need A President, Anyway? - January 20, 2009 - 3 common tags
• What Would Martin Luther King Say Today? - January 12, 2009 - 2 common tags
• Saying Goodbye To King George In Style - January 2, 2009 - 2 common tags
• Rules Are For Citizens, Not Candidates! - August 28, 2008 - 2 common tags
• Let The Games Begin! Iowa Caucus 85%-97% In - January 3, 2008 - 2 common tags

The first actual contest in the Presidential race has just about concluded. The Republican results are rather predictable with 85% of precincts reporting-

1. Mike Huckabee – 34%
2. Mitt Romney – 25%
3. Fred Thompson -14%
4. John McCain – 13%
5. Ron Paul – 10%
6. Rudy Giuliani – 4%
7. Duncan Hunter – 0%

The Democratic side, however, was shocking (at least to me) with 97% of precincts reporting-

1. Barack Obama – 38%
2. John Edwards – 30%
3. Hillary Clinton – 29%
4. Richardson – 2%
5. Joe Biden – 1%
6. Chris Dodd – 0%
7. Mike Gravel -0%
8. Dennis Kucinich – 0%

There’s still a possibility Hillary will end up in 2nd place as the margin is fairly narrow, and Thompson and McCain may well change places as well. But I think Obama is the only real news story here. According to entrance polls he was receiving more than 50% of the votes under the age of 30 and actually appealed to a larger portion of women then Clinton. Even more surprising is that Iowa Caucus goers are overwhelmingly white at 93% with only 4% of them being black. And Obama still dominated. That’s pretty impressive, although I suppose Tiger Woods and all those Nike golf clubs ads have moved the country pretty far along the road of acceptance since Jesse Jackson ran back in the day.

Huckabee’s victory isn’t too surprising considering the high population of “born again” evangelicals in Iowa. Less religious people were only a tiny portion of his support and that’s going to hurt across the rest of the country.

Post from: Philaahzophy

Let The Games Begin! Iowa Caucus 85%-97% In

• What’s the Iowa Straw Poll Anyway? - August 8, 2007 - 4 common tags
• Cut Hillary Clinton Some Slack! - November 11, 2007 - 4 common tags
• How Oblivious Would You Like Your President? - January 2, 2008 - 3 common tags
• Fox Affiliate Points Out Fox Censorship Of Dr. Ron Paul - January 2, 2008 - 3 common tags
• Why Do We Pay The President Of The United States? - November 8, 2008 - 2 common tags