Hillary's Postmodern Job Interview

[Draggingtree]

:

Hillary's Postmodern Job Interview

Aaron D. Wolf - OCTOBER 01, 2016

 

Laws passed by men

are funny: No matter how precisely they’re worded, they don’t enforce themselves. They need someone to do the job of enforcing them. And the scope and magnitude of the laws in question don’t alter this existential reality; even the Constitution requires someone to execute its provisions.

 

Some may recall from civics class that our federal government has an entire branch devoted to the execution of the laws of the United States. Heck, you’d have to be living under a rock not to have noticed that the role of chief executive has been much ballyhooed for many months, to the point of exhausting our patience. The job of faithfully executing the Constitution of the United States is a coveted one, it turns out! Furthermore, folks think it’s an important job—so important that an enormous amount of time has been spent haggling over one garishly flamboyant candidate’s temperament. Does the candidate’s “usual attitude, mood or behavior” disqualify him from the job?

 

Admittedly, there is such a thing as a presidential temperament. Indeed, with much at stake in our national contest, one strains to see the relevance of words such as Rosie and O’Donnell on the presidential debate stage. But then again, we might ask, what is a candidate’s attitude, mood, or behavior toward the laws themselves? Doesn’t that disposition give us some clue about that candidate’s willingness to execute them?