Reply With Quote
"the President can from now on do whatever he wants."
redstate!
TSA!
Give the framers of the Cons ution 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 ins utions 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 Scorecard10% 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, 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 cons uencies 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 Cons ution 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/cons ution-failed/
"the President can from now on do whatever he wants."
redstate!
TSA!
The Cons ution 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 because He Loves You.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-06-2015 at 05:23 PM.
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?
Half the article was about immigration.
And the point made was about the determination of whether or not congress was in recess, not recess appointments
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.
Pointing out the stupid he does makes your source no less tty nor you less stupid.
The Supreme Court ruled on that and struck down the recess appointments 9-0. How is that evidence the cons ution has failed?
He's not speaking only of Obama.
no, he's speaking out his ass.
thinks Congress acts for The American People?
What the article did you read? He's says the exact opposite.no, he's speaking out his ass.
thinks Congress acts for The American People?
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!
ty hack article.
pretty much.
Great substantive response. Thanks!
Which is relevant how?
A. Your gloss was incorrect.
B. The president doesn't have the power to determine when congress is and isn't in session.
It was a terrible, irrelevant example since the Cons ution worked. My point stands. No could be made about any of that if Congress simply votes on candidates in a timely manner.
No . That example showed the Cons ution's working rather perfectly, therefore useless for arguing the Cons ution failed. Even saying that it was the death of checks and balances between the President and Congress was a failure.B. The president doesn't have the power to determine when congress is and isn't in session.
In his zeal to argue an irrelevant point, vy manages to his pants again.
I mean, if both parties of Congress pull all this stalling bull on nominations, of course the executive branch is going to try new to get around it. You can't cry foul after ruining the system in the first place.
Just vote on the nominees.
Simple.
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 cons utional authority. Was the cons ution working perfectly with Obama's executive order on immigration too?
Your commentary is so insightful
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
