One of the biggest examples of presidential pomp is the annual State of the Union Address. The precedent for such speeches was set by the first president, George Washington. Some of his critics in Congress complained that President Washington acted too much like a monarch. Yet modern Americans are often shocked to learn that, when the first president made a series of goodwill tours across the country, his entire entourage consisted of three people. The president traveled by coach with but his driver and his footman. The footman was in charge of inspecting taverns for bedbugs; if he gave thumbs down, the three would simply drive off in search of another tavern to spend the night.

Those days are gone forever, but not completely forgotten. It is in the nature of republican government to constantly debate the scope of executive powers and George Washington’s presidency was no exception. Thomas Jefferson, for example, so disliked Washington’s precedent of personally delivering his State of the Union messages to joint sessions of Congress, that he ended the practice as the third president. For more than a century, until Woodrow Wilson revived Washington’s precedent, State of the Union addresses were delivered by courier to congressional clerks who read them into the congressional journals. As Americans once again ponder the rhetoric of a new State of the Union speech, they need to think about the dangerous growth of presidential powers over the past century.

Remarkably, Fareed Zakaria is today’s winner of a constitutional gold star. Some time ago, a Zakarian rant against the “constitutional fundamentalism” of Second Amendment supporters won him a Contempt of Constitution award. Zakaria is the author of a shallow book called “The Future of Freedom.” It said liberal democracy is the best future of mankind. He defined liberal democracy as a government that holds elections.

Americans have never accepted so simplistic a view of democratic government. Those who adhere to the written Constitution, as well as advocates of a “Living Constitution,” believe that the rule of law is at least as important as elections. They have different views of the rule of law – Living Constitution advocates demand that Roe versus Wade be considered settled law, while traditionalists say the text of the Constitution remains the supreme law – but both insist on limits to the power of the majority.

Mr. Zakaria has apparently learned at least a few good things in recent years. He cites the 19th Century book by British author James Bryce, called “The American Commonwealth,” to argue that Barack Obama acts more like a prime minister than an American president. Bryce believed that the American Founding Fathers intended the American presidency to be unlike a prime minister. Like the British king, the US president should be independent of the legislature; should stand above political parties; and should represent the interests of the whole nation. Zakaria says President Obama has “allowed the great policy program of his presidency to be written and defined by a collection of congressional Democrats, accepting the lopsided bills that emerged and the corruption inherent in the process.” Zakaria says Mr. Obama should represent all the people.

That’s good advice, but it’s not the whole constitutional story. In the 20th Century Progressives took control of most of the schools and media. They have praised presidents who have aggrandized the institution and who sought to be transformational leaders. They scoffed at presidents who had more modest objectives like respecting the limits of constitutional government.

Few American pundits appreciate the narrow view the Founding Fathers had of executive power. They believed an executive “executes” policies and laws without creating them, like the executor of a will.

Under the US Constitution, who makes policy? Progressives assume that’s the president’s job. The framers of the Constitution would disagree; they gave that power to Congress. That is why they believed the president could be above political factions – because he would check congressional corruptions by speaking for the people as a whole.

The Founding Fathers were reluctant to have an independent federal executive. There was none under the Articles of Confederation. Americans had revolted against what they viewed as the tyranny of the British king. Antifederalists like Patrick Henry opposed ratification of the Constitution in large part because they feared American presidents also would become tyrants.

With respect to James Bryce, the president of the United States was not meant to have all the powers of a monarch. One important difference is that the British Constitution gives the power to declare war to the executive branch, while the US Constitution gives that power to Congress.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, even believed that Congress should take the lead in setting foreign policy. His first great break with his friend and ally, George Washington, an alliance that was vital to the success in creating the Constitution, came when President Washington unilaterally declared American neutrality in the war between Britain and France created by the French Revolution. Madison wrote a newspaper article to argue that the president was usurping a congressional power.

Lately, Congress has developed the lamentable habit of giving the president nearly carte blanche authority to wage wars. The framers of the Constitution would be appalled. They viewed the power to make war, without congressional oversight, as one the executive branch could use to endlessly expand its powers.

Until the Progressive era, few presidents had legislative programs. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln were among chief executives who only vetoed bills they believed were unconstitutional. Even Lincoln, usually rated as the greatest of all presidents, had no legislative program of his own.

By contrast, as Zakaria notes, not only is Mr. Obama intimately involved in the drive for increasingly ambitious legislation, he also is part of the resulting corruption. Mr. Obama’s ambition for a national health care bill has been so urgent that he praised such ugly bribes as the “Cornhusker Kickback.” The result has been the ferment of the TEA Party protests and the electoral chaos in Massachusetts. Mr. Obama appears untroubled by such corruption.

As a Progressive, Mr. Obama’s constitutional views allow him to unilaterally declare that America is no longer a Christian nation. He and his supporters ignore the religious roots of the American Revolution. Mr. Obama, in his Nobel acceptance speech, reaffirmed his faith that human nature, no matter how flawed, can be perfected. Not for a Progressive like Obama is the admonition of the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, who said, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” (Jeremiah 17:9).

Progressives like Obama believe it is the job of government to perfect flawed humanity. Their Living Constitution has outgrown the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, who said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” They consider nonsense the maxim of Lord Acton that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

The Scorecard believes most Americans still understand that the Progressives are wrong. The mischief of man still needs to be chained by constitutional government. How, then, to restore the presidency to the limits intended by the Founding Fathers? The success of this venture will be one of the keys to saving the republic.

Here are some possible solutions.

Congress should reclaim the power to declare war, even limited wars. Congress should reclaim all of its legislative powers and stop allowing executive departments and agencies from expanding their regulatory duties into actual lawmaking. Congress should also clamp down on unconstitutional lawmaking by federal judges and justices, since the presidential power to nominate judicial officers increases presidential power and the intensity and bitterness of presidential elections. Congress in general, and the Senate in particular, should press for a more active role in any foreign policy ventures that could lead to combat overseas. The president should resume his constitutional role of vetoing bills he believes are unconstitutional.

To date, the impeachment power against presidential abuses of power has been almost totally ineffective. A constitutional amendment to clarify the nature of impeachment may be in order. It might also be wise to allow state governments to have a role in federal impeachments. For example, why not allow a majority of states to convene a special tribunal to present a list of indictments to a joint congressional vote for impeachment? It might also be possible to try presidential impeachments with a select tribunal of state chief justices chosen by lot. That would limit the power of an impeached president to use patronage to buy votes for acquittal from US senators.

Patronage is among the least discussed of presidential powers, but one of the most important. It is also among the most corrupting. Because the president is also the leader of his political party, he can be the crony in chief, dispensing political favors to buy votes in Congress. This system permits endless expansion of the size of the federal government. Reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy would help limit presidential powers.

Finally, three questions are worth asking. First, is it time to limit the president to a single term? A president who cannot seek reelection will have less control over Congress and that could force Congress to take more responsibility for national policies. A Congress that focuses on the big picture, and not on winning federal jobs and grants for constituents, would be a less corrupt legislature.

Second, should the president be required to be nonpartisan? The Constitution did not anticipate the two party system and the Framers were skeptical of the role of political parties. George Washington said partisanship is a threat to the survival of republican governments. James Madison, while watching the development of a federal two party system in the 1790s, suggested political parties could be part of the checks and balances of this continental republic. But a president who is elected as the leader of a political party often finds it difficult or impossible to fulfill the vision of James Bryce that the commander-in-chief should represent the whole people without partisan bitterness. Think, for example, of President Obama’s complaints that opponents of nationalized health care talk too much!

Finally, has America outgrown the unitary executive? The American founding generation revolted against the powers of a corrupt king. The Antifederalists of 1787 wanted a plural executive. The modern presidency, like the modern Congress, is often a corrupt institution (Watergate, Whitewater, Climategate, etc). Together, the presidency and the Congress are turning the modest federal government of Washington and Madison into a Leviathan that threatens to undo the natural rights proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence.

Switzerland, a confederation praised by Patrick Henry for its devotion to liberty, has an executive Federal Council with a rotating presidency. It has been a free, independent republic for more than 700 years. It has survived repeated attempts to conquer it by Austria, France, and Germany. It is tiny and has long been considered archaic by tyrants like Robespierre, Napoleon, Bismarck, and Hitler. Yet it continues to annoy every advocate of a new global order by enduring and prospering in the 21st Century.

If Switzerland can remain free with a rotating presidency, why can’t the United States? It’s worth thinking about. Remember, the 2010 State of the Union Address will include few comforts for Americans seeking restoration of the Constitution created in 1787 to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”