The Constitution has Failed

[TheSanityAnnex]

Give the framers of the Constitution a lot of credit for having an understanding of human nature that was surprisingly perceptive and ahead of its time. They understood well that, all other things being equal, men will more often act in their own perceived self interest than in the interest of others. They therefore understood that the key to establishing a long-lasting form of government that would provide both stability and harness the best parts of majoritarianism while protecting against its excesses, it would be necessary to provide a divided government with structural checks and balances in which the self-interest of one branch would continually work against the self-interest of the others in a never-ending give and take that would preserve not only the Republic but the institutions of the Presidency, the Congress, and the Courts themselves.

The fundamental error which the framers made – which, in their defense, was perhaps not foreseeable at the time – was the way that the concept of “self interest” would change in the festering culture of Washington, DC in the early part of the 21st century. It was assumed by the framers that Senators and Representatives would always view the most powerful self interest they had as their right to write the laws of the country and to enlarge their own political power. They could not have foreseen – even in their most pessimistic visions – the fawning culture of lobbyists and the perks it would provide Senators and Representatives in the modern world. They could not have understood the way in which, as politics polarized, political parties and their self interest would ultimately become the only way to get and keep this power, along with all its attendant material benefits – nor the way that protecting a Congressman’s post-Congressional lucrative lobbying career would become the highest goal of nearly everyone who assumed the office.

And so we were treated to the spectacle, a few years back, of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)Heritage ActionScorecard Sen. Harry Reid10%Senate Democrat Average3%See Full Scorecard (http://heritageactionscorecard.com/members/member/R000146)10% smiling through a mouthful of s*** sandwich as he explained that it was a good thing that even though Congress had declared they were not in recess, the President had decided they were in recess anyway and had made a number of recess appointments. This was the day we all knew good and well that the concept of checks and balances, at least between Congress and the President (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theemploymentbeat/2014/06/26/obamas-nlrb-recess-appointments-deemed-unconstitutional-100-decisions-impacted/), was good and dead. If members of the President’s own party would not stand up even for the right of Congress to decide when they were frigging in session and when they were not, they would never stand up to him on anything. And now we know that not only will they not stand up to him, they will affirmatively filibuster any effort to stop a clear affront to their own prerogatives, in order to keep their party apparatus and lobbying constituencies happy.

The new reality in America is this – unless Congress is someday composed of two-thirds members of the opposite party of the President (which is an increasingly remote possibility in our increasingly polarized country), the President can from now on do whatever he wants. Only the Supreme Court remains with the power and the will to stop him, and only then when it feels like it or is ideologically opposed to what he has done. The most democratically responsive branch of the Federal Government now exists for the almost exclusive purpose of determining who receives the largest share of the taxpayer money with which the taxpayers are to be bribed for their re-election. Before long the executive branch will be likewise emboldened to act in regular defiance of the judiciary, as it currently is of Congress, and who will stop it then?

Who knows? Maybe this new system under which basically the whole government is elected in a single election once every four years will continue to essentially function for some time. But it is no longer functioning in the way it was intended to function and the delicate system of checks and balances that has sustained the Republic for so long has been fundamentally disturbed. The Constitution had a good run – better than should have been expected, perhaps – but it is no longer serving to provide balance and stability in the Federal Government anymore.

http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/03/constitution-failed/

[boutons_deux]

"the President can from now on do whatever he wants."

:lol

redstate! :lol

TSA! :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol daily kos
:lol think progress
:lol alternet
:lol salon
:lol dem underground

[baseline bum]

The Constitution pretty much failed from the beginning with the whole allowing slavery thing.

[boutons_deux]

The Constitution pretty much failed from the beginning with the whole allowing slavery thing.

yeah, all Euro-American male landholders are created equal.

and God sends you to hell because He Loves You.

[ChumpDumper]

So this is about recess appointments?

Here's a thought -- both parties agree to vote on the nominees up for confirmation before they go into recess.

Could that work?

[vy65]

Half the article was about immigration.

[vy65]

And the point made was about the determination of whether or not congress was in recess, not recess appointments

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The author has no sense of history if he thinks that this is an unprecedented power grab by the POTUS. He should look up Andrew Jackson or the FDR administration.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol daily kos
:lol think progress
:lol alternet
:lol salon
:lol dem underground

Pointing out the stupid shit he does makes your source no less shittty nor you less stupid.

[Th'Pusher]

And the point made was about the determination of whether or not congress was in recess, not recess appointments
The Supreme Court ruled on that and struck down the recess appointments 9-0. How is that evidence the constitution has failed?

[TheSanityAnnex]

The author has no sense of history if he thinks that this is an unprecedented power grab by the POTUS. He should look up Andrew Jackson or the FDR administration.

He's not speaking only of Obama.

[boutons_deux]

He's not speaking only of Obama.

no, he's speaking out his ass.

thinks Congress acts for The American People? :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

no, he's speaking out his ass.

thinks Congress acts for The American People? :lol

What the fuck article did you read? He's says the exact opposite.

[vy65]

The Supreme Court ruled on that and struck down the recess appointments 9-0. How is that evidence the constitution has failed?

I never said that it was. Not did the author. Try again.

[Th'Pusher]

I never said that it was. Not did the author. Try again.

Oh right. Checks and balances are dead, unless of course If we count that third branch. Great point!

Shitty hack article.

[cd021]

The Constitution pretty much failed from the beginning with the whole allowing slavery thing.

pretty much.

[vy65]

Oh right. Checks and balances are dead, unless of course If we count that third branch. Great point!

Shitty hack article.

Great substantive response. Thanks!

[ChumpDumper]

And the point made was about the determination of whether or not congress was in recess, not recess appointmentsWhich is relevant how?

[vy65]

A. Your gloss was incorrect.
B. The president doesn't have the power to determine when congress is and isn't in session.

[ChumpDumper]

A. Your gloss was incorrect.It was a terrible, irrelevant example since the Constitution worked. My point stands. No bitch could be made about any of that if Congress simply votes on candidates in a timely manner.

B. The president doesn't have the power to determine when congress is and isn't in session.No shit. That example showed the Constitution's working rather perfectly, therefore useless for arguing the Constitution failed. Even saying that it was the death of checks and balances between the President and Congress was a failure.

[Th'Pusher]

In his zeal to argue an irrelevant point, vy manages to shit his pants again.

[ChumpDumper]

I mean, if both parties of Congress pull all this stalling bullshit on nominations, of course the executive branch is going to try new shit to get around it. You can't cry foul after ruining the system in the first place.

Just vote on the nominees.

Simple.

[vy65]

Sweet, so you agree your original spin on the article was incorrect.

You have a funny interpretation of things working perfectly when you're using a 9-0 court decision holding that the president is overstepping his constitutional authority. Was the constitution working perfectly with Obama's executive order on immigration too?

[vy65]

In his zeal to argue an irrelevant point, vy manages to shit his pants again.

Your commentary is so insightful

[The Reckoning]

Thought this was a boutons thread tbh

[vy65]

Where would we be without your constant jizz slurping?

[vy65]

I mean, if both parties of Congress pull all this stalling bullshit on nominations, of course the executive branch is going to try new shit to get around it. You can't cry foul after ruining the system in the first place.

Just vote on the nominees.

Simple.

Thats a fair point. But doesn't make Obama's actions any less unconstitutional. More of a reason why the system as a whole is broke

[ChumpDumper]

Thats a fair point. But doesn't make Obama's actions any less unconstitutional. More of a reason why the system as a whole is brokeSo all Congress needs to do is what it is supposed to do according to -- THE CONSTITUTION.

Wow.

In that case, Congress failed -- not the document.

[ChumpDumper]

Sweet, so you agree your original spin on the article was incorrect.Nope. Still a terrible example.


You have a funny interpretation of things working perfectly when you're using a 9-0 court decision holding that the president is overstepping his constitutional authority.How is that not working perfectly?

Explain.

It's perfect because the checks and balances built into the Constitution worked. Just like it did in other instances with Republican and Democratic presidents who acted beyond his Constitutional powers.

Was the constitution working perfectly with Obama's executive order on immigration too?That has yet to be determined. He might actually have authority in his actions.

I'm fine with letting the Constitution determine that.

What are you asking for?

[TheSanityAnnex]

So all Congress needs to do is what it is supposed to do according to -- THE CONSTITUTION.

Wow.

In that case, Congress failed -- not the document.yeah not sure why the author used the title he chose. The Constitution works well when it's not trampled and ignored.

[The Reckoning]

Jizz slurping will get you further in life than your thoughts on the Constitution

[Th'Pusher]

yeah not sure why the author used the title he chose. The Constitution works well when it's not trampled and ignored.
Actually the constitution appears to work just fine even when one branch is overstepping its authority.

Shitty article tbh

[ChumpDumper]

yeah not sure why the author used the title he chose. The Constitution works well when it's not trampled and ignored.The Constitution works well when members of Congress do their jobs.

The thing is a decent number of Republicans are actually fine with Obama's plans on immigration and health care, but can't let on because their continued employment relies on never cooperating with the evil Muslim in the White House.

It's their problem. They can take back their authority at any time.

Constitutionally.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Actually the constitution appears to work just fine even when one branch is overstepping its authority.

Shitty article tbh
Shitty take tbh. The Constitution is ignored.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The Constitution works well when members of Congress do their jobs.

The thing is a decent number of Republicans are actually fine with Obama's plans on immigration and health care, but can't let on because their continued employment relies on never cooperating with the evil Muslim in the White House.

It's their problem. They can take back their authority at any time.

Constitutionally.
You and OP in step lol.

[Th'Pusher]

Shitty take tbh. The Constitution is ignored.
And when it's ignored, the separation of powers checks and balances seems to be working as designed. It was a dumb article with irrelevant examples. I know it appealed to your emotions, but it really was a stupid article.

[ElNono]

I read the article on redstate a couple of days ago. I think he's misguided. His argument would basically apply to any time in history really, as veto-proof majority was always there.

What he's overlooking is the fact that we've had Congress much more willing to compromise and legislate and partisanship/polarization wasn't at an all time high like it is now. Under those circumstances, getting a veto-proof majority (if it's even needed), was much simpler.

The problem, I think, is that "compromise" has become some sort of maligned word, especially by those that firmly believe we're dealing in moral stands rather than politics.

In a way, that intransigent position is actually getting them away from power (and disillusioned, obviously), IMO.

[awktalk]

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

[ChumpDumper]

You and OP in step lol.Except the Constitution hasn't failed lol.

[Clipper Nation]

The Constitution hasn't failed. The electorate and the scumbags they vote into office every election are the real failures.

[Clipper Nation]

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed
All I needed to see was the title to know that article was shitty. We were doomed when we decided we were a democracy instead of a republic.

[Th'Pusher]

All I needed to see was the title to know that article was shitty. We were doomed when we decided we were a democracy instead of a republic.

When did that happen?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Except the Constitution hasn't failed lol.
We've already covered that. You could have written the second paragraph.

[Clipper Nation]

When did that happen?
When we started allowing our elected officials to erode the system of checks and balances as described in the OP, and when policy debates started to solely center around popularity and ideology rather than constitutionality.

[DMX7]

I thought this was your writing in the post until I got to the link at the bottom. I can believe that made it through somebody's editing process (or maybe it didn't).

All those conclusions and the best and only empirical evidence provided was Harry Reid. :lol Yeah, the Harry Reid's of the world are really destroying America. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

We've already covered that. You could have written the second paragraph.
We didn't cover that. I don't think the framers made an error. OP does.

[RandomGuy]

The Constitution works well when members of Congress do their jobs.

The thing is a decent number of Republicans are actually fine with Obama's plans on immigration and health care, but can't let on because their continued employment relies on never cooperating with the evil Muslim in the White House.

It's their problem. They can take back their authority at any time.

Constitutionally.

One has to wonder what the sane wing of the GOP makes of the increasingly large insane wing.

[boutons_deux]

"the sane wing of the GOP"

most have been primaried out of politics, the remainder shuts up and votes with insane Kockensteins to protect their seats.

[boutons_deux]

doesn't make Obama's actions any less unconstitutional

:lol Which of Obama's actions are unconstitutional? :lol

Or, have you been listening to Repugs and Fox slanders?

[a777pilot]

The Constitution has not failed. What has failed are the small people that don't understand it and see it as an impediment to their power and wealth.

[RandomGuy]

One has to wonder what the sane wing of the GOP makes of the increasingly large insane wing.


"the sane wing of the GOP"

most have been primaried out of politics, the remainder shuts up and votes with insane Kockensteins to protect their seats.

Ah, the good old days before the inmates took over the asylum. RIP GOP, hello Trump Party