Obama's State of the Union

President Obama is a professional motivator. He rallied a country to say “Yes We Can” in Hyde Park, and he can still address the Union with speeches that can make even a nonbeliever hang a HOPE sign in their window. He even mustered a few applauses from John Boehner on Tuesday.

However, the reality of Obama’s promises are unsettling. I’m sure Obama meant what he said, and I’m sure he has every intention of following through with his agenda, but Obama knows the restrictions on a president the best.

Innovation: “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”

Obama said he’ll be sending a budget to Congress that will help research and development in biomedical research, information technology and clean energy technology.

Reality? Obama began motivating his audience during the first five minutes. But this is just a proposal. Congress has to approve this. Obama has no direct say whether this will happen or not.

Education: “If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.”

Obama promised to get rid of No Child Left Behind and start enforcing Race to the Top, a proposed reform of our public schools. Obama claims it was established by governors throughout the country and it has led 40 states to raise their teaching and learning standards (Indiana must not be one of them).

Reality? Not much. Although education has always been high on Obama’s list, it’s not something he has a lot of control over. Yes, he can throw out No Child Left Behind and implement a new system, but how Race to the Top works in public schools will be up to administrators. He’ll also need Congress to approve his education budget.

Reducing the deficit: Obama proposed to freeze annual domestic spending during the next five years, which will reduce the deficit by $400 billion during the next decade.

Reality? Congress will once again have to approve these spending freezes.

The president spoke on other issues as well, such as immigration. But he simply stated his stance and what he hopes the country will do, but he even recognized himself that he can’t change our immigration laws alone.

The only things Obama promised that’s in his realm of power is to veto legislation that came to his desk with “earmarks.” However, this is not news to Obama. He was careful to say “propose to Congress” throughout his speech and to say that the health care reform will not be repealed, but he is willing to work on many kinks that have already appeared. He followed Kernell’s theory that public opinion matters with his motivational “We do big things.” He did this whenever he talked about small businesses and large railway system: He was trying to win over the American people by “going public.” He did this when he thanked teachers and when he spoke of lowering cooperate taxes, and it’s definitely a good way to win votes. He also followed Neustdat’s theory that the president must persuade the people around him in order to get legislature proposed. He tried to make his proposals as appealing as possible and attempted to win Congress over. Lucky for Obama, he’s a very motivational speaker and convincing guy.

Fine-tuning the U.S. Constitution

The Constitution of the United States was written by the Founding Fathers as a living document, meant to be amended. Although it’s the longest lasting constitution in the world, it works because amendments can be added and we’re not constrained to keeping the exact regulations that were written more than 200 years ago.

The U.S. president is a person we dedicate an entire year to electing, and campaigning and fundraising begin long before that. Since it’s such a sought-after and important leader, it’s also a position that needs to be reevaluated.

The first thing I would change is the Electoral College. By having electors vote for the president, we have the possibility of making the popular vote irrelevant. It doesn’t represent democracy, and with a low voter turn out already, voters can argue why should they vote if the Electoral College will be the deciding factor. The Founding Fathers instated this to help represent voters that might not be as educated on the issues of the day and the people running. But today, we should assume that voters are educated enough. There is plenty of media available that a voter has no excuse not to be educated about who he or she is voting for. I propose that the president is elected by popular vote. If there is a tie or discrepancy, in which the popular vote is not valid, then I think the vote should go to the Senate. There are two representatives from each state that could vote and they would be responsible for representing their state.

I also don’t agree that the president should have to be a natural born citizen. It states that the president must be 35 years old and been a resident of the United States for 14 years. I don’t understand why a person who was born in another country, but moved to the United States when they were young can’t be president, especially if they grew up in the United States. I think that a person should have to be an American citizen for 20 years and lived in the United States for 14 and also be 35 years old. That way people who were not born in the United States can be president, but they still must have resided here for the past 14 years, which the Founding Fathers originally wanted. In Article II, Section I, I would omit the part that says “No person except a natural born Citizen,” and simply state “Only Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been a Citizen for twenty years and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

I also have an issue with Article II, Section II. It states that the president will be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States. My problem with this is that not every president is qualified to be Commander in Chief of our military. I think an amendment should be added that states that the president must have some type of military background in order to be elected president.

Article II, Section IV is very vague. It states “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” What that meant in the 1700s, I’m not sure. What it means today…I’m still not sure. The founding fathers never could have predicted the reasons for impeaching Nixon or Clinton, however, I think without more specific guidelines, the United States could waste a lot of time impeaching a president for a simple misdemeanor. For instance, was impeaching Clinton really necessary? Yes, he lied to the American people, so yes, that's a decent reason. But was his personal life really the American public’s business? Did Clinton spend too much time trying to explain his personal life instead of getting things done for our country? Either way, the wording needs to be more specific so we don’t abuse our impeachment powers. I would reword it like this: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, lying to the American people, putting the American people in harm’s way or other high crimes.”

I would also repeal the 22^nd Amendment. I would allow the president to have more than two terms. I think that if a president is doing well, why get rid of him after only two terms. Four years isn’t a lot of time to accomplish many goals when the presidents’ powers are already so limited. If a president isn’t well liked and not doing a decent job, then the electoral process will weed him out. I would abolish term limits all together.