sa国际传媒官网网页入口

H.L. Mencken, the legendary newspaperman for the Baltimore Sun and surly social commentator, was in a sour mood in 1937. Not a fan of Franklin D. Roosevelt鈥檚 New Deal, Mencken was especially unhappy that most of FDR鈥檚 proposals had sailed through Congress with overwhelming support in both houses. It had become obvious, he said, that the Constitution of 1788 was too old-fashioned for the pace of modern politics. It was burdened by an unmistakable 鈥渉unkerousness鈥� characteristic of a system founded on checks and balances among three separate and equal branches of government. The framers thought that checks and balances were the bedrock of any free republic. FDR had proven them wrong. The sluggishness inherent in such a system was a nuisance to the president鈥檚 鈥渟wift-moving idealism.鈥� Mencken thus proposed a 鈥渨holly new Constitution,鈥� one that was more in accord with everything the New Dealers were doing.

At the core of Mencken鈥檚 proposed new constitution was an all-powerful executive. The president could 鈥渓ay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,鈥� as well as conclude 鈥渢reaties and alliances.鈥� As commander-in-chief, he could 鈥渄eclare war, prescribe the terms of neutrality . . . [and] raise armies.鈥� At his discretion, he could also create 鈥渆xecutive agencies鈥� to assist him, with the clear understanding, however, that 鈥渘o person shall be a member of any such agency who has had any practical experience of the matters he is appointed to deal with.鈥�

The legislative branch in Mencken鈥檚 constitution was an ugly extension of the executive.  鈥淓very bill鈥� introduced in Congress 鈥渟hall be prepared under the direction of the president,鈥� and no amendment shall be proposed without the written 鈥渃onsent of the president.鈥� The primary task of the leaders of both chambers 鈥� the vice-president in the Senate and the speaker of the House 鈥� was to 鈥渕ake known ... the president鈥檚 wishes.鈥� Congress was authorized to create committees and conduct hearings; however, 鈥渘o person appearing at such a hearing shall offer any argument involving criticism of the president.鈥� Indeed, the sole responsibility of these committees was 鈥渢o investigate the business practices, political views and private lives of any person known to be inimical or contumacious to the president,鈥� and subsequently to 鈥減ublish at public cost any evidence discovered that appears to them to be damaging to the property or reputation of the person or persons investigated.鈥�

Finally, in keeping with the first principle of good government, that is, loyalty to the president, Mencken鈥檚 constitution required both houses of Congress to police their membership and to 鈥減unish its members for refusing to vote as directed鈥� by the president. Ultimately, each house must 鈥渆xpel a member for persisting in contumacy.鈥�  Not surprisingly, faithful members, those patriots who unquestioningly did the president鈥檚 bidding, could expect to be rewarded with 鈥渇ederal appropriations and other gratuities鈥� in proportion to 鈥渢heir fidelity to his ideals and commands.鈥�

As political satire in 1937, Mencken鈥檚 re-imagined constitution was mildly entertaining; as political reality in 2026, not so much. If Mencken was upset that FDR鈥檚 proposals were quickly passed into law by Congress, he would have been apoplectic had they been initiated by presidential decree alone. In the first 100 days of his presidency, with most Americans desperate for relief from the worst economic crisis the nation had ever experienced 鈥� the Great Depression 鈥� FDR placed before Congress all of his major policy initiatives. In contrast, our current president chose to bypass Congress in implementing his agenda. He relied instead on executive orders, issuing 147 of them in his first 100 days, a record high for any president. Meanwhile, a compliant Congress passed only five bills into law, a record low.

Mencken claimed that his enumeration of powers assigned to the chief executive was inspired by the actions of the New Dealers themselves. However, FDR never acted unilaterally to collect taxes or impose tariffs. Nor did he spend public money 鈥渋n such a manner as he may deem to be to . . . his advantage or benefit.鈥� He did not wage a war of his own choosing, and he did not believe that he had the authority to conclude treaties on his own. Lastly, he was not so thin-skinned and vengeful as to need congressional committees to investigate perceived political enemies and to make public any evidence that might damage their reputations. Mencken鈥檚 complaint in 1937 seemingly anticipated the actions taken by another, much later occupant of the White House.

In Mencken鈥檚 preamble, 鈥淲e the People of the United States鈥� ordained and established a new frame of government in order to 鈥渞emove the burden of liberty from ourselves and our posterity.鈥� Mencken鈥檚 constitution was widely circulated in condensed form by The Reader鈥檚 Digest. Was his warning well received? Would it be well received today?

Mel Yazawa is professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico and the author of "Contested Conventions: The Struggle to Establish the Constitution and Save the Union, 1787-1789."