Washington Would have Kept Departments from Mixing so Much

  For good principles of good government, turn to none other than George Washington for instruction.
   And, wonder what he would have thought of too many cabinet meetings, or of overlapping responsibilities.
   Where does the State Department leave off and the Defense Department take up? What falls under the Department of Homeland Security and how broad of an umbrella does the national security officer have?
    I wonder what Washington, the person, would have thought of today's Washington, the government?
    "It is important," he said in his farewell address, ". . . that . . . a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another."
   If he were alive today, perhaps we could rush into his classroom, and he, as teacher, would snap us back into line.
   "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism," he warned.
   "A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position," he said.
   In other words, if one department head can find its way into another department, it will. The "love of power" will bring them to try to sway their influence where they ought not.
   Washington suggested dividing the government into different "depositaries," "To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them," he said, meaning (I'm sure) that we should not allow this division of responsibilities to be removed.
   But, look at the Washington -- the government -- of today: Meetings that mix the different departments? Yes, we have that all the time. And, 16 cabinet positions . . . and another seven cabinet-level offices? You know they are overlapping, getting into each other's work.
   Washington felt so strongly about the division of departments that he suggested that if things went awry, then we should correct them "by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates."
   Then, the next part of what he says, I wonder at: "But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in the one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Was he suggesting that the president not just arbitrarily make the change, for that "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed?" Or, was he simply saying that one department should not usurp power from another?
  Or, both.
   I think on this, and note that if a president can create whatever offices and departments and responsibilities he will, he can expand on his own authority. It is of interest, then, that with only a limited number of exceptions, all offices of the U.S. are subject to the approval of the Senate.