Separation of Powers: Why Blaming the President is Incorrect

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For those unfamiliar, this is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.  I will be referring back to this as well as other parts of the Constitution throughout the article.  I chose to open with the preamble because it sets our baseline of what we're trying to achieve as a nation.  Let's break it down.  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" was our founding fathers' way of saying that we as a collective group will be deciding the fate of the country and the union between the individual states.  Establish justice-put in place a judicial system and give the people rules to abide by.  Provide for the common defence- establish a military. Promote the general welfare-this is a big one.  It does not mean that we as a nation will be providing you as a citizen the resources needed but will be giving you the tools to provide for your own well being.  Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity-continue to do what is necessary to maintain our freedom from foreign power as a nation as well as maintain our freedom as a people from the elected government.  The founding fathers understood a very important thing about power, that it has a tendency to corrupt people.  I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said "Power is not alluring to pure minds."  This is why term limits for the presidency are in place.  This is also why I feel there needs to be term limits for Congress, but I'll do my best to keep opinion out of this one.  

Article I

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.  

This was to remove some of the power from the President because the founding fathers understood that power corrupts people.  The House and Senate were to be made up of members of each state to provide a voice at the federal level for the residents of the states.  Section 2 through 10 of Article 1 outlines the guidelines for which Congress will follow as well as rules for being a representative in either fashion of a state.  

Article II

This outlines the presidential responsibilities and guidelines. The big take-away from Article II Sec. I is the oath.  "I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." This means that while yes, he/she holds the position, their primary responsibility is upholding and protecting the Constitution.y

Article III

This establishes the Supreme Court as well as inferior courts and gives guidance as to how a case will be heard.  The only cases they don't have jurisdiction to hear are those of impeachment.  It also specifies that judges are appointed public officials and will be paid as such.

Now that we have the first three articles of the Constitution which establish the three branches of government let's go in depth into the requirements and the responsibilities of each branch.  Once we do that we'll break it down further into the individual states and their responsibilities within the government.  My goal isn't to completely exonerate the President from any potential wrong-doings, but rather to explain why we as a nation can't place the blame entirely on that one person regardless of who it is.  What I do hope to achieve is getting you, the reader, to understand a couple of different things.  The first being that it's important to vote.  Not just for President, but in your local and state elections too.  Those are the really important ones, those are the ones that give you your voice in D.C.  Those are the ones that make the choices that directly affect you and your daily life.  The second thing I want to be taken away from this is that we need to start pointing the finger at the right people.  If you don't like something that was done let's call out the right person(s).  We have every right to be upset, angry, sad, etc. over injustices and wrong-doings by anyone in any level of government.  But we also have the right to have our voices heard to get the changes made that we want to see in the world.  The last thing I want you to take away from this is the 'how?'  How do I make a change?  How do I get my elected officials to hear me?  I'll hopefully be able to explain this to you so we can start being the change and actually making a difference in peoples lives.

We've established that Article I of the Constitution establishes the Congress, both the House and the Senate.  Now it's time to break everything down within it.  Bear with me though, there's quite a bit.  Section I grants ALL legislative powers to the Congress.  All laws have to pass through Congress.  There are exceptions which I'll explain later with Article II.  

Section 2.1 establishes voting cycles and districting.  It states that voting on these people will be done every two years.  It also establishes registration requirements.  Section 2.2 outlines the requirements to become a member of the House of Representatives.  You have to be at least 25 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and live in the state in which you are elected.  Section 2.3 breaks down how the numbers of seats are calculated.  Some of this section is out of date because of various laws that have passed since its writing.  This commonly known as the three-fifths clause and gets misinterpreted all the time.  It adds together the total number of free persons within the state excluding natives not taxed and three-fifths of all other persons.  This gets misinterpreted in that people believe it meant that blacks were seen as 3/5 of a person when in reality it meant that 3/5 of the slave population would be counted towards the states population numbers.  This was done to give states that relied heavily on slavery more pull at the federal level.  Free blacks in all states were counted as people 1:1.  You had states like Virginia or Georgia which relied heavily on their farming.  Farms and plantations were typically very large and families couldn't tend to them alone so instead of paying someone to come help they bought slaves to do it for free.  Those states used this clause to their advantage in getting a say in Congress.  There were very few people that could actually vote initially.  You had to be a white male and have a certain amount of money and education.  In those southern states, where there was very few people that could actually meet these requirements as opposed to states like Delaware, New York, and Massachusetts the slave owners of the south became upset because they wanted to be able to have a "fair" say in what goes on in the country.  In order to do this, because there were so few people in general and even fewer that could vote the way they came up with getting them their say was to count 3/5 of the slaves.  This boosted population numbers and gave those states more representation in D.C.  Clause 4 establishes that if a congressperson leaves office or dies while in office the governor of that state is to establish an election to fill the vacancy.  Finally, in Section II Clause 5 we give the House the power to choose their speaker and other officers as well as the power to vote to start the impeachment process.  

Section 3 breaks down the requirements to become part of and the responsibilities of the Senate.  Clause 1 is out of date when read directly as it grants the state legislature the power to choose the senators.  This changed with the passing of the 17th amendment which granted that power to the citizens of that state.  It also establishes that there will be two senators from each state.  Clause 2 tells us that voting for the Senate happens once every six years.  It also tells us that initially, they were broken down into classes.  One-third of them were to be up for re-election two years after the first selection of senators, another third after four years, and finally the final third of them after six years.  The third clause of this section breaks down the requirements to become a member of the Senate.  You have to be 30 years old and a citizen for at least nine years.  You also have to reside in the state in which you were elected to represent.  Clause 4 grants voting power within the Senate to the Vice President but only in the event of a tie vote.  This was set up this way because the founding fathers understood that there are varying political views and there would likely be two people with different political views representing each state.  Also simple math tells us that if you have an even number of people representing each state, no matter how many states there are, you'll always have an even number of senators.  Ties are inevitable.  The Vice President is that tie breaker vote.  Clause 5 establishes that the Senate chooses its own officers and establishes a President pro-tempore.  In the absence of the Vice President they have the power to vote on one person to represent them.  Clause 6 is the reason both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump got to stay in office even after impeachment by the House.  The Senate is the judge and jury on impeachment cases.  In order to have someone removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate needs to vote to have that person removed.  Finally Section 3 Clause 7 only grants the Senate the power to remove an elected official from office.  Once done, that person can still be brought up on charges in actual court.  

Section 4 covers a little bit about elections and the mandatory meeting of Congress.  Clause 1 allows the state legislature the power to choose the time and place of elections.  It also allows Congress to make a law changing that time and place.  Initially Congress could not do that but that was changed with the passing of the 17th Amendment.  Clause 2 mandates that Congress meet once a year.  Initially the time was the first Monday of December but Section 2 of the 20th Amendment changed that to January 3rd.

Section 5 discusses the powers and duties of the House.  First, it grants Congress the power to judge the legitimacy of an election as well as allow them to establish their own rules, punish members, and expel a member.  Two-thirds vote is required to do this.  Next it outlines that a majority of chairs need to be present to conduct business.  The full majority isn't required to vote, but they must be present and capable of voting.  Finally it requires that sessions and voting be recorded.  Congress can choose to keep these things classified unless one-fifth of the members vote for it to be public it must be public.  It also requires that neither the House nor the Senate can close down or move proceedings from their usual location without consent of the other chamber.  

Section 6 mandates Congressional pay.  They are to be paid directly by the U.S. Treasury Dept. The 27th Amendment prohibits them from raising their pay during the current session meaning any legislation to increase pay will not take effect until the next session.  It also protects members of Congress from civil suits while they are in session but they are still subject to criminal matters.  This was done to prevent intimidation by the courts because of a disagreement on position of a topic.  They are also protected from criminal and civil prosecution for the work they do as legislators.  And finally, to ensure separation of powers, members of Congress are not allowed to hold any other federal position.  

Section 7 regulates tax and spending bills.  It mandates that all tax and spending bills start in the House, move to the Senate, then on to the President.  The bill needs to have sufficient votes to move on in the process of course.  If a bill reaches the President and no action is taken for 10 days, not to include Sundays then the bill automatically becomes law.  This section also gives the President power to veto a bill and list objections contained in it and send it back to its originating chamber.  

Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress in pretty explicit detail.  The biggest take away from this section is the part on taxes.  Congress has the power to set taxes, tariffs, and other means of collecting revenue as well as the power to authorize the expenditure of federal funds.  It also lists out other powers Congress has.  The power to maintain a military, the post office, coin money, determine the immigration and naturalization process, and many more.  The 10th Amendment was eventually passed granting power to the states on powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.  The 16th Amendment also comes into play here as it gave Congress the power to implement a federal income tax to help earn revenue.  

While Section 8 outlines the powers Congress has, Section 9 outlines the areas in which Congress does not have legislative power.  It prevents them from barring the import of slaves before 1808.  This was a big deal because slavery was never intended to be a semi-permanent fixture to society in America.  While slavery itself lasted another almost 60 years, trans-Atlantic slave trading was abolished in 1808 meaning no new slaves were brought to America.  Thomas Jefferson, who was President at this time actually imposed severe punishment for those that did.  The punishment was a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.  In 1823 a law was passed punishing slave trade with death.  Up until 1808 there were several restrictions on the people by Congress regulating the slave trade.  No American built ship could transport them, they could not be trafficked through American ports, and Americans were prohibited from investing in the slave trade.  They actually intended to abolish slavery at the constitutional convention of 1787.  It didn't pass because the states in which slavery was heavily relied on wouldn't allow it to pass.  Congress did set the institution of slavery on a course for expiration but allowed the states to abolish it whenever they chose to.  There was no explicit mention of race in the Constitution until the 15th Amendment was passed in 1870 granting people of color the right to vote.  The only reason slavery existed at all in the U.S. was due to a pre-existing interest in slave holdings at the time of the writing of the initial draft of the Declaration of Independence.  While, yes, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and some of our other early presidents and founding fathers were slave owners we could assume that they were understanding to the fact that it was wrong based on the text in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence which states that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Section 9 also prohibits laws being passed against a specific person or group of people.  This is to prevent bypassing the courts and making it possible for people to be jailed without a fair trial as provided by the 6th Amendment.  It also prohibits taxes on interstate commerce.  The final item prohibited by this section is the acceptance of titles of nobility, offices, or gifts from a foreign country without congressional approval.

Finally, Section 10 outlines powers denied to the states.  These were specifically outlined as to create an even field in the world of commerce and trade among the states and to prevent any one state from becoming more powerful than the others at the federal level.  For example, states may not enter into a treaty with a foreign nation.  They also cannot tender their own money nor grant a title of nobility.  They also cannot pass any bills of attainder or ex post facto laws(laws making something illegal after someone has done it).  Also, no state is allowed to collect taxes on imports or exports, maintain an army, or engage in war unless invaded or in imminent danger.  These require approval from Congress first.  

Now that we have the requirements, duties, and responsibilities of Congress out of the way, let's dive into the same for the President.  This will be much shorter than the previous as there are only four sections under Article II which outlines the requirements and duties of the President of the United States.  

Article II Section 1 establishes the presidency and through the 12th and 25th Amendments, establishes who is eligible to run for office as well as establishes the electoral college.  It also authorizes Congress to appoint someone in the event both the President and Vice President are incapable of serving.  It also states that both the President and Vice President are to be elected at the same time and once every four years.  Until 1951 a President/Vice President could serve as many four year terms as they could win.  This was changed with 22nd Amendment which limited the President to two four year terms.  If the Vice President serves more than two years of a term as President then he/she is only eligible for one full term as President.

The electoral college, as outlined in Section I is made up of people voted for by the states.  The number of electors for each state is equal to the number of members of the House and Senate from that state.  Congress themselves nor other federal officials may serve on the electoral college.  Each state legislature has their own way of deciding how electors are selected and how they are to vote.  Most states electors vote based on which candidate won the popular vote in the state while others vote based on congressional districts won within the state.  Maine and Nebraska are examples in the latter instance.  Each candidate wins one electoral vote per district won and two electoral votes if they won the popular vote within the state.  The electoral college was created to give smaller states more power come election time instead of the larger, more populous states getting all the voting power.  If popular voting and electoral voting ends in a tie the 12th Amendment add more rules to the selection of the next POTUS.

The last few things covered under Article II Section I are the requirements to being able to become President, pay, and the oath one must take upon being elected.  The requirements are as follows; you must be at least 35 years old, be a natural born U.S. citizen, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.  Presidential salary is set by Congress and cannot be changed during the term of a president.  The President is also prohibited from accepting any other perks or compensation while in office.  Finally the oath.  The oath of the President is huge in why these social issues aren't the responsibility of the President.  I mentioned the oath earlier but I'm going to break it down a little better here.  The oath states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  Executing the office of President of the United States is exactly that.  Following the guidelines set forth in Article II of the Constitution.  It also mentions defending the Constitution of the United States.  As the President it is his/her responsibility to maintain the sanctity of the Constitution and protect it using whatever means are available.  There are guidelines as to how to do this as well as treaties with other countries limiting some of the power of the President.  It is not his/her duty to protect the people, but to protect the Constitution.  

Section 2 of Article II places the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the country as well as other executive agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of the Treasury.  This section also grants pardoning power to the President and the ability to, with two-thirds approval from Congress, make international treaties and appointments to seats such as the Supreme Court, U.S. attorneys, U.S, marshals, and agency heads.  The President can make these appointments when Congress is not in session but those appointments end the next time Congress is in session.  

Section 3 mandates that the President give Congress a report on the current state of affairs within the country.  This is commonly known as the State of the Union address that is given every January or February.  If the President feels it necessary, he/she can hold a special session of Congress.  This is generally held for matters of national security.  

Section 4 provides that the President, Vice President, and other federal officers can be removed from office by way of impeachment.  There have been four times in history in which impeachment proceedings were brought against a president.  Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.  The process starts with the House of Representatives voting to bring impeachment charges against the official.  That official then stands trial with the House members as the prosecution, the Senate as the jury, and the Chief Justice presiding over hearings involving the President.  Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to have the official removed from office.  

Now that we've covered the two important parts of the U.S. government I'll explain why the President isn't entirely to blame for various social issues within the U.S.  The biggest thing is that the President doesn't make the laws.  He has the power to sign executive orders but Congress is the body with legislative power for the nation.  Breaking this down even further, each individual state has a body similar to Congress to help write and vote on laws for the state.  I'm sure Congress could utilize their power to impeach the President for abuse of power if they feel too many executive orders are being signed.  Some feel that Trump has signed too many EO's while others thought Obama signed too many.  Let's look at the last five presidency's and how many EO's were actually signed by each one.  Trump in his four years in office has signed 160 as of 20May2020 according to a UC Santa Barbara study.  President Obama signed 276 over his eight years.  147 in his first term and 129 in his second.  George W. Bush signed a total of 291, with 173 in his first term and 118 in his second.  Bill Clinton had the most of the last five presidents with 364 total EO's.  200 of them came in his first term and the rest in his second.  George H.W. Bush only served one term as President and signed 166 EO's during his tenure.  This averages out to roughly 157 EO's per year over the past 32 years.  

Now, I know you're thinking that the President should be protecting the people but in reality he/she protects the Constitution which protects the people, as does Congress.  This doesn't mean that the laws passed are good for everyone, but rather good for the majority and within the guidelines set forth by the Constitution and not be contradictory to any part of it.  When it comes to social issues that you feel should have a law passed to correct something, take a look at your local and state laws, there might be something already in place.  If not, it's up to you as a citizen to make it known that some injustice is being done and it needs to be corrected.  I will warn you that it may take a while.  It will take time to go through the courts to be heard.  It will take time for legislation to actually be written and then passed.  Remember, the individual states can make laws applicable to the issue and it actually should be up to them to create new laws.  We as a nation, were founded on a principle of limited government control.  This doesn't mean that laws shouldn't just be reserved to the individual states, but that if the states can put something in place to take care of the issue locally then they should.   

One example of social issues that were put into the limelight by the president was the "War on Drugs."  This war was officially declared by then President Nixon in 1971 however, research shows that it began much earlier.  In 1914, the first law restricting the manufacture and sale of certain drugs was passed.  The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act regulated and taxed the manufacture, importation, and distribution of opiates and coca products.  1919 saw the passing of the 18th Amendment which abolished alcohol sale, manufacture, and distribution of alcohol except for religious and medical use.  In 1920, the Volstead Act was passed to enforce the laws of the 18th Amendment.  In 1930 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was formed under the Department of the Treasury.  1933 saw the repeal of the 18th Amendment by enacting the newly passed 21st Amendment.  1935 saw a huge hit to the drug trade.  The Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act was passed granting states policing power to enforce the laws outlined in the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act passed 20 years prior.  Two years later the Marihuana Tax Act was passed with the hopes of destroying the hemp industry.  After the act was passed it gave power to jail people simply for possessing cannabis.  The next notable thing passed in the "war on drugs" was the Bogg's Act which placed mandatory sentences for drug convictions.  This culminated in becoming the biggest hit to many communities nationwide along with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 which labeled controlled substances and scheduled them into five different categories.  The DEA was created in 1973 to replace the Bureau of Narcotics.  President Nixon then ended the mandatory 2-10 year minimum federal sentence for marijuana and started federal demand reduction programs and federal treatment programs.  The fight against the black market drug trade really saw a jump under the Reagan administration.  The Comprehensive Crime Control act was passed in 1984 which expanded penalties for marijuana possession, established a federal system of mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession, and established procedures for asset forfeiture.  In his first term as president the FBI drug enforcement budget increased more than tenfold from $8M/year to $95M.  In 1982, Vice President George H.W. Bush pushed for the CIA and U.S. military to be involved in the efforts against the drug trade.  1988 saw the passing of the National Narcotics Leadership Act which mandated a national youth anti-drug campaign which came to be known as the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.  The campaign works with various government and non-government entities to advocate for the reduction of illicit drug use in the youth of the nation.  It was initially enacted by George H.W. Bush in 1989 then later raised to cabinet-level status by Bill Clinton.  I will note that the fight against black market drug trade and use is very much a social issue due to the Nixon administration.  They're the administration that made it a thing and they're the ones that started the disruption in many homes within low income communities, specifically black.  

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.

It became a social issue for the communities because of these laws.  It was an issue because drug use was becoming extremely prevalent throughout the country in the 60's and beyond but became a social one when the laws enacted targeted a specific community.  These are the injustices in the present day that we need to be looking at.  Criminalizing a community for something like this is wrong.  I'm not saying I believe all drugs that are listed as controlled substances should be legal for over the counter purchase, but I do believe we can do things to prevent the targeting of a community for it.  If we bring this evidence up through the court system there is a potential for these laws to be deemed unconstitutional and ultimately overturned.  This has a very good chance of happening as well under the argument of the Watergate scandal which both Nixon and Ehrlichman were involved in.  There is some argument over the Ehrlichman quote in Harper's Magazine but it was widely known in political circles that Nixon certainly didn't like drugs and was passing laws to try to end their use and distribution within the U.S.  Ultimately these policies hurt low income communities, primarily black communities as the rise in heroin use occurred and then subsequently the rise of crack and cocaine use in the decades following as these communities traditionally turn to drugs because of the appeal of fast, easy money to get them what they need right now.  In this instance we need to call for our elected leaders to review these policies and make changes based on current data.  Reduce mandatory sentencing, increase rehab programs, cut back on FBI drug enforcement unit funding, cut back on U.S. military drug interdiction, etc.  There are cuts that could be made that would ultimately help these communities that are being targeted for drug use and actually get them cleaned up.  

On the other hand we have the criminal justice system and the wrong-doings by it as a whole and those that work in it.  You have cops that believe it's okay to kneel on someone's neck for almost 10 minutes despite him screaming for his life.  You have cops that go home and abuse their spouse or kids.  You have cops targeting people just because they look like they don't belong.  Not once will I say that all cops are good or all cops are bad.  I understand that regardless of the line of work you do there's assholes and there's good guys.  Some will argue that in police work there should be no "bad cops" and compare it to pilots saying that in some lines of work there's no room for "bad *insert arbitrary job here*."  I agree with you that there's no place for bad pilots in the world.  You know why you don't have too many of them? They understand that if they're bad at their job they'll likely die.  And in the event they do survive, they'll be going to jail for a very long time.  If we move to doctors and nurses, the "bad ones" get fired, lose their licenses and certifications, and get put on a national list to never be able to practice medicine again if they don't go to jail.  A "bad" cop on the other hand, can profile and target and maybe get fired for it.  But there's no national list that that person ends up on like a Dr. or nurse.  They're likely not going to jail for life just for profiling and targeting.  They just get fired and move to a new town or maybe a new state and get a new job as a cop somewhere else.  There's no measures to help weed out the "bad cops" in our communities.  You know where this change would start?  Within our counties and individual states.  Say each individual state has their own database of cops that were fired for abuse of power or something along those lines, they wouldn't be able to just move to the next town and get a job there.  They would have to move to a new state.  If we can get states to share their databases with each other then they wouldn't be able to move to a new state and get a job either.  Then let's get all the states to share this information with say, the FBI, and federalize this database so they can't just move to a federal job either.  So while, you're correct in saying there's no room for "bad cops" what are we as individual municipalities, counties, and states doing to hold cops accountable?  

There's a ton of power granted to the states for policing in the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment is what grants the states and the people this power.  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Police power as defined in Constitutional law is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.  Because there's no true outline of what these "powers" are the Supreme Court actually heard a case and ruled that matters such as marriage/divorce, intrastate commerce(a product is produced and sold within the same state), and local law enforcement practices.  This ruling gives the states the power to do a couple of things in regards to policing within them individually.  They can create laws applicable to them, they can enforce them and create punishments for them appropriately, and most importantly, they can decide how those laws are enforced.  Deciding how the laws are enforced within the state gives the state's elected officials the power to run the police departments how they see fit.  There are definitely some changes that need to be made to police departments and methods of policing nationwide but this power, because there's nothing in the Constitution dictating how policing is done in the country, is reserved exclusively to the states.  You may be thinking to yourself "The President can pass a law mandating policing is done a specific way in every state," and while yes, he can, it would quickly be deemed unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as it wouldn't be a new amendment to the Constitution and it would be overriding the "not prohibited to the states" because the states have their own constitutions that outline the powers granted to them through the U.S. Constitution.  Also, while yes, the President can pass some law doing that it's required to start in the House and move through the Senate before he can pass it.  Yes, there's Executive Orders but those are designed to be temporary as well as being subject to judicial review.  An Executive Order is not law.  The most well known EO is the Emancipation Proclamation which declared freedom for the slaves.  This was not a law but was written as such that it could be enforced as one due to its nature.  It granted freedom for an enslaved people which, as we've already seen, the Declaration of Independence regarded all men as being created equal.  It was later turned into law by way of the 13th Amendment and voided because of the amendment.

Given all of this information, the next time you want to say "President so and so did this and he/she is a bad person for it." just remember that it's not solely up to the President.  There's Congress first in all matters of federal law.  The President also has a team of advisors and cabinet members that also act as advisors on matters pertaining to their specific department they're in charge of.  I want you to think about all these bills relating to healthcare for LGBTQ+ people, or all these laws regarding policing, or even laws regarding discrimination.  Think about where these laws originated from, who's in charge of that department, and who introduced the law or the change to the law the next time you hear something was passed that you don't agree with on the surface.  Also, I want you to actually look into the laws that you think you don't agree with for whatever reason and read them.  But don't just read them, read them with an open mind.  Allow yourself to see it for what it actually is, not what you believe it to be.  Also, before choosing some socio-political ideology, I implore you to actually do your research on it, and not just read things by people that believe in the ideology, but also read fictional works that showcase it.  For those that are looking for books about these topics, while I do suggest reading those that align with your views, I also suggest you read even more that don't align with your views.  There are many different ideologies out there and to become the most well-informed you need to educate yourself on as many of them as possible.  You're going to find the task daunting because there's microcosms within each ideology that tend to take things to the extreme.  I wouldn't focus on those so much as they're not very representative of the group as a whole but rather the base ideologies.  If it uses as party system, like we do here in the U.S., learn about the major parties.  Learn about their history and what they stand for.  I'm not trying to mark one political ideology higher than another, just trying to encourage you to educate yourself and find the one that you feel fits best and the one you'd most like to live under.  Don't focus just on the good they have to offer, focus on the bad too.  Every single one has it's flaws, both on paper and in practice.  I also encourage you to try them in practice in your households barring you live with people other than your significant other.  I also recommend you try some various social aspects of some of these ideologies as well.  I'll use borders for my example.  If you're for open borders, find a homeless person or two and invite them to live in your house.  But because they're homeless they likely don't have any current job skills or have some sort of drug/alcohol problem, both of which could be compounded with mental health issues.  Yes, I know I'm generalizing, but I'm also stating facts.  Now you, as the governing body of your household, have to provide for this person entirely until they get a job and are able to provide for themselves.  It's these types of ideologies that I want you to practice and see how well they work.  Again, I'm not trying to sway you to one ideology over another, just trying to educate you the best that I can on the subject.  I'm going to post some links that showcase books that are highly recommended reads by political "experts" and historians.  Experts is in quotations because if we had a true political expert everyone in the world would be living under a single ideology.  These lists are not all inclusive but should cover the majority of the information you are looking for.  

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/7-books-that-will-help-you-get-your-head-around-the-modern-political-landscape/ - This list goes over the current political landscape in the United States and gives insight into the parties and their ideologies today.

https://fivebooks.com/category/politics-and-society/political-ideologies/ - This one covers the top five books in varying ideologies as recommended by renowned students of them.  

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1200.Politics?page=1 - This is the final link and it is just a general list of books on politics and various ideologies worldwide and throughout history.  

Authors I recommend based on personal experience reading their works are Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Marx, Orwell, Rousseau, Tocqueville, Hegel, Montesquieu, Thoreau, Lenin, Tolstoy, More, and Paine.  Their works cover a large portion of politics in today's world and can typically be applied in today's societies around the world.  

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. ”

― Pericles

“Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.”

― Frederick Douglass

“When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons.”

― Anaïs Nin, The Diary of Anaïs Nin, Vol. 4: 1944-1947