By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) defended President Trump’s policy decisions, citing Article Two, Section One of the Constitution, which vests executive power in the president. He argued that the president, elected by the people, should make decisions, not unelected bureaucrats or career experts. Jordan dismissed concerns raised by a federal judge who deemed some presidential actions excessive, characterizing this as a difference in philosophy between Republicans and Democrats concerning the role of executive power. This divergence highlights a fundamental disagreement over the balance of power between the executive and other branches of government.
Read the original article here
Jim Jordan’s assertion that a president can disregard judicial rulings is a striking claim that challenges the very foundation of American governance. His argument boils down to a simple proposition: the elected president, chosen by “We the people,” holds ultimate authority and can overrule any decision made by the judiciary. This perspective essentially dismisses the principle of checks and balances, a cornerstone of the U.S. system designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.
This idea directly contradicts the established framework of American democracy. The Constitution explicitly outlines the roles and powers of each branch of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – with a carefully crafted system of checks and balances meant to ensure accountability and prevent tyranny. Jordan’s suggestion that an elected official can simply ignore court rulings effectively dismantles this structure, allowing the executive branch to operate unchecked.
The implication is a stark shift towards a system where the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of the executive. Such a scenario would leave citizens vulnerable, with no recourse against potential abuses of power. The judiciary, designed to uphold the Constitution and interpret laws impartially, would become a mere formality, its decisions meaningless if easily disregarded by the president. This raises serious concerns about the future of justice and fairness in the country.
It is also ironic that this argument comes from individuals who have previously been critical of executive orders issued by previous administrations. The selective application of this principle reveals a profound hypocrisy, highlighting the partisan nature of the debate. The unwavering loyalty demanded by this viewpoint seems to supersede any commitment to established legal processes or principles of constitutional governance.
This perspective suggests a disturbing disregard for the expertise of career professionals within the government. The assertion that decisions should solely rest with elected officials, disregarding the input of experienced professionals, seems shortsighted and potentially damaging. Government functions often require the specialized knowledge and insights of individuals with years of training and experience, particularly in complex fields. Ignoring such expertise risks poorly informed decisions and inefficient governance.
Furthermore, this viewpoint essentially advocates for a form of executive supremacy, mirroring the characteristics of authoritarian systems. The idea that one person, regardless of their office, holds absolute power is antithetical to democratic ideals and the protection of individual rights. It suggests a willingness to sacrifice the principles of accountability and limited government for the sake of unchecked power.
Such a perspective raises significant questions about the future of the rule of law and the potential erosion of democratic institutions. The potential consequences of allowing a president to ignore judicial rulings are profound, undermining the very foundation upon which a just and equitable society is built. This is not just a political argument; it is a fundamental challenge to the core tenets of American democracy and its constitutional framework. The long-term implications for the country are deeply troubling, warranting serious reflection and discussion about the balance of power and the principles of democratic governance.