Apolitical executive?

To the Editor: The president was intended to be a primarily apolitical executive tasked with nothing more than executing laws. However, the modern presidency has devolved into a monarchical office that sets political policy and chooses which laws ought to be enforced based on politics. The Founders believed the president should not interject into the politics of Congress unless compelled to do so in defense of natural rights. The Speaker of the House was intended to be the chief political lawmaker because the Speaker is more directly and readily accountable to the people and is more likely to act in their interests.

Woodrow Wilson perverted the lawmaking system by supplanting Congress with the presidency. Thusly, like a king, one person commands nearly all executive and legislative authority, resulting in deep societal polarization.

The State of the Union address exemplifies this polarization, as it is nothing more than a sycophantic political show of the executive king lamenting his policy wishes and achievements to a group of self-interested elitists who lack the political will to recover their legislative power from the grip of the executive.

Additionally, presidents selectively enforce laws depending on the in-power political administration. For example, Presidents Obama and Trump both selectively enforced immigration and tax laws solely out of political interests. Therefore, to secure representative government and defend against executive tyranny, We the people must vote for principled leaders who will commit to reducing the power of the presidency and bolster the power of Congress along with local and state governments.

ETHAN BALD

Exeter