Sequester as Constitutional Failure (Congressmen, enemy, lawyer, Pelosi)

[Ferd]

and thus the problem perpetuates. One side suggests increasing power of the executive the other side suggest deminish the power of the federal government entirely.

As bad as it is, it certainly is an interesting time to be alive...

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Ferd

(taking off my partisian hat)
I do not like effecient government. I like slow deliberative government that grinds to a hault when a large part of the people object to directional change.

Honestly I would prefer the answer be Congress getting out of the business of the state (I realize we are not going to agree on this point).

Believe it or not, I'd prefer some deliberative element also. My preference would be for a "chamber of sober second thought" like the Canadian Senate: weak in the grand scheme of things, but to some degree independent of partisan political pressures, and with enough veto power to put the brakes on when necessary. It seems the US Senate was intended to be something like this (the "cooling dish" metaphor?), but it doesn't really function that way any more.

(BTW, "business of state"? I'm guessing you mean the fifty states, not "the state" as in "the government" as a whole: that would be pretty odd)

But I dont think giving the president ultimate authority is a good thing.

Neither do I. In fact, I think it's dreadful. But a dispassionate view has to accept that that's where we've been headed, and still are headed.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by squarian

Believe it or not, I'd prefer some deliberative element also. My preference would be for a "chamber of sober second thought" like the Canadian Senate: weak in the grand scheme of things, but to some degree independent of partisan political pressures, and with enough veto power to put the brakes on when necessary. It seems the US Senate was intended to be something like this (the "cooling dish" metaphor?), but it doesn't really function that way any more.

(BTW, "business of state"? I'm guessing you mean the fifty states, not "the state" as in "the government" as a whole: that would be pretty odd)



Neither do I. In fact, I think it's dreadful. But a dispassionate view has to accept that that's where we've been headed, and still are headed.

your assumption is correct, States as in the 50... not State as in the Federal. Once again I defy spell check. LOL.

[Swingblade]

With democracy I think it was inevitable that we would end up with the imperial presidency. I think a wide majority on both sides it is preferable, think of the phrases we use at election time. Such as we are electing the leader of the free world. It sort of gives us this special recognition that the American people are so important. And who does not want to feel important.

Just look how we view our choices, Paul is too old and short and Christie is just too dam fat. They could have the best ideas but the people want someone with perfect teeth and good looks. So not only do we want a imperial presidency but we will elect imbeciles so we can parade them to the world.

When the {R}s proposed the idea of giving Obama the power to choose the cuts I was for the idea in theory. I mean Obama acts the part of a imperial president it is his way or the highway. I still like the idea but it is un constitutional and not to be a big hypocrite I have to be against.

I think why the idea of a imperial presidency is gaining wide support is deep deep down people are starting to realize the failings of democracy and how far we have strayed from the original intent of the founders. How many of us have thought if my party can just win the presidency we can keep X party from passing bad legislation? So people naturally look for the president to even stop the majority in their tracks.

The president handed or claiming more power is something I think we will see more of in the future. If it is done right the president won't hardly even get a challenge. Look at FDR, the SC made a decision against his wishes and with a threat of stacking the court they sung a different tune. And I strongly think that democracy leads to tyranny and we are on the road. The only question left is which of the pathetic parties will be at the helm.

[texdav]

I think its just that politcvs is always a matter of compormiseand is often definde as the art of compormise. Reagn worked with Tip Oneal in comparomises. Clinton worked with Gingrich. Whhne yo have exteme base ruling like in Democratis party and repulbican party like now driven by so mnay spoeical interest groups it results in politcians that are elcted not to compromise but push a set agenda.One has to first look at the party committees and their platform they create. The Democraqtic party commitee passed from clinton centralist to obam leftesi of that party. The repulbicnas have gone thru a similar committee movement to the right.The leadership of both and those newly elcted reflect that.It all starts locally then moves to state governamtn shifts and then ends in federal as always in these shifts. Even Biden said that poltical shifts are l;ike a pendulum and always swinging depedning on what voters see in results that effect them.Perhaps the exteme we see is Greece where poltical power has for some deacdes gone to thsoe who promise the most govenramnt jobs created since they were seen as only secure jobs because of years opf private sector decline form fiscal policies. I think we are seeig that shift to more polically realted jobs now days rather than private setor has goverment has grown so much and so mnay dependent on its spending more and more.Tis crisis is likely in the end to chnage mnay opinions on mnay things when the cost finally rears its head as it starting to do.Its lie wanting a new car then getting the first payment 'really.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by squarian

That would be one route, I agree. But then we have to ask: how likely is a convention? In other words, as a practical matter, is such major constitutional surgery feasible?

I'd like to think it is - if for no other reason than that if would prove constitutional reform possible, since everyone of whatever partisan bent can surely admit that a system which is incapable of such reform is certainly doomed eventually.

But if it isn't, then the necessary "reform" takes place by other means. One can't damn up the floodwaters of history. And for the last century, the way our constitution has been amended hasn't been the ordained method, but by gradual evolution.

Evolution toward elective monarchy, imperial presidency, to be precise.

While I think many of the people in this country are lethargic, there is an inherit culture in the US that contains a defiance to ruling powers. If latter continues, Civil War will occur. Now if such a result hinders or helps, that is another discussion.

Honestly though, I think an Article 5 is more likely. The states have been the kick stool for the federal government for a while now and as time goes on, more and more "contest" with increased means occurrence. I think it entirely possible that enough states will get fed up and we will have the number to reach such a goal.

Though to be honest, I think the federal government would attempt to bully such an event if it were to occur. We have already seen multiple times in history where the federal government disregarded constitutional law, I doubt a threat of such to their nature would be civil, so the Civil War may be unavoidable. I mean, after all, the southern states acted entirely constitutionally and Lincoln disregarded it.

Our nation really is a unique one. Our affirmed liberties are clearly established to which no other country has achieved the same level of recognition of liberties (they mimic to a degree, but in the fine print, those are given by the state). If they continue to evolve as you suggest, eventually there will be a tipping point. When, where, and why remains to be seen, but the 2nd is looking like one that could fit into that issue. Such disregard could result in a convention, or... civil war. I would prefer the former, but the latter may be required at some point and that certainly depends on the actions of the federal government.

My biggest problem though is that we aren't ready for a conflict. Too many people are ignorant, many are chasing rewards they think they can get through government, and many are supporting or attempting to "fundamentally change" this country. The single most important factor of our nation is being disregarded by many, and that is liberty.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Ferd

and thus the problem perpetuates. One side suggests increasing power of the executive the other side suggest deminish the power of the federal government entirely.

As bad as it is, it certainly is an interesting time to be alive...

Yes, in many ways we are facing similar aspects that the founders faced. What is interesting though, is they predicted we eventually would.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by squarian

I agree. But is it enough to say, "this isn't how it's supposed to work, darn it"?

Of course not. I've already noted what else we should do. Throw them out.

My point is that the presidency became imperial for good reasons. Chief among them is that the Constitution provides for checks, but doesn't provide for a situation where the two active branches are so deadlocked, so opposed, that the stalemate actually poses a danger to effective government or the national well-being.

Yes it does. We have elections every two years.

There could be a mechanism for resolution: for example, X number of weeks without a budget forces a new election, of either or both branches. But there isn't, and there isn't likely to be.

I think there has been three elections since Reid has brought a Budget resolution up for a vote.

Instead, the historical solution to crisis has been to enhance the power of the presidency as the most efficient branch, and therefore the quickest route out of the mess. For the most part, this has affected foreign policy issues, where the role of commander-in-chief makes the argument easy.

But from time to time, and increasingly since the end of the Cold War, the crises have been home-grown, in the form of deadlock between Executive and Legislative branches. And yet, in those cases, as we've just seen, the tendency still operates: get out of the mess by giving power to the presidency.

This is a long-term development - saying "we need better politicians", or "we need better voters" isn't a solution. We've had better politicians - we've probably had better voters. The result has been the same, since at least Wilson's era, and probably since TR.

It's not going to happen. Are you going to vote for the same people as last time?

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Nomander

I think we have given the federal government too much power that it was never intended to have while at the same time reducing the power of the states. The federal government was designed to be limited, slow, and inefficient. It was supposed to have debate tied up as we see, with arguments reaching impasse in all but the most key aspects to which all could generally see and agree on.

I agree that the federal government has more powers today than was ever intended for them to have, and that they usurped those powers from the States. The US Constitution is suppose to limit the powers of the federal government. Except where specifically prohibited by the US Constitution, the States were to be vested with the powers that their own State Constitutions provides, and all remaining powers were to be vested with the people where they originate.

It was always the intention that of the two houses of Congress, the House of Representatives would be the more radical of the two, being elected by popular vote. While the Senate, originally nominated by State Governors and approved by their State legislatures, would be the wiser, more deliberative body.

Nice idea, in principle, however in practice it tends to be flawed. Within the first five years after the First Amendment, and the Bill of Rights was ratified, Congress enacted the Alien & Sedition Act into law. By the late nineteenth century the "political machine" in many States had bought and paid for Senate appointments made by Governors, who were obviously not interested in being wise and deliberative. Thus spurring the need for the Seventeenth Amendment.

Furthermore, if new immigrants wanted work, or even a place to live, they voted in accordance with union's political pressure. So the principle the founders originally intended, at every level, was not functional in practice.

Originally Posted by Nomander

Now it has all this power, all this authority and that core design is getting in the way. The obvious solution is to remove those powers from the government, place them back in the hands of the states and its people and greatly reduce the responsibility of the federal government.

By doing so, their inability to function efficiently will have limited effect on the states and people (ie working as intended).

Those advocating giving it more power are promoting overthrow of our system, our government and protections in order to serve their ideal as to some singular power utopia that dictates to the people their own well being. Frankly, I see calls for such as the same as arming and rushing our borders. It is sedition in civilized form.

The power may originate with the people, but it always has a tendency to flow upward. From communities, to cities, to counties, to States, all the way up to the federal government. The more power concentrated at the top, the less power States, counties, cities, communities, and ultimately the people have.

There has been a 224 year tug of war to determine where the proper balance of power should reside. Those that argue that power must reside at the top are branded tyrants and fascists. Those that argue that power must reside at the bottom, with the people, are labeled anarchists and libertarians.

I do not pretend to know where that balance of power should reside, or the form of government that would best preserve the founding principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Until someone proposes a better form of government than we have today, I am content with sticking with the government that is in place today. As flawed as it may be, the alternatives may be even worse.

[Redraven]

One of the common definitions of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results.
Apply that to the people who vote for the same people over and over, hoping that they will actually FIX something THIS time! Or, because "We need that seniority in the House or the Senate!"
I will never forget Mike Mansfield. He voted FOR the 1968 Gun Control Act, and a sizable portion of the Montana electorate had a firm desire to lynch him. Yet, the next election, he was very comfortably re-elected. WHY? "He has such seniority, we NEED him and his power!"
That is why we have the mess in D.C. that we have today. "Seniority" has become more important than representing constituents or the good of our country. It is all about pandering for votes in the next election.
The silly voters go along with it, gladly!
READ what the founding fathers had to say. NONE of them wanted an aristocracy. NONE of them wanted professional politicians. NONE of them felt that any person should have more than one or two terms in office. They felt that one should go do their duty to the country, then return home and perform productive work for the good of society. No one should feed at the public trough for their entire lives, the way it is happening now.
Personally, I have decided that since the parties can't or won't give me candidates that I can vote FOR, they leave me no choice but to vote AGAINST. I started several elections ago voting AGAINST the incumbents, especially those going for their third or greater terms. If they have been there for one or two terms, and haven't accomplished what they said they would do during the first election, they never will, get rid of them, send them home and hope they will get productive employment, sweeping streets or something.
Our Governor is limited to two terms. So is the President. Senators and congresscritters should be limited as well. Since the Constitution does not allow us to pass term limits, we have a choice: pass a term limit amendment to the Constitution, or term limit them ourselves. It is easier to vote against the incumbents than it is to pass and ratify an amendment.
Therefore, I call on all concerned citizens to do just that: VOTE AGAINST the incumbents. Clean house in D.C. Kick them ALL out, and make it very plain to those who get elected that WE are watching YOU! YOU are our employees, and we WILL fire you if you displease us! NO MORE living in the lap of luxury and getting rich at taxpayer's expense.
While we are at it, have we had our fill of electing Yale and Harvard graduates yet? How about we elect some mechanics and computer programmers and nurses and ditch diggers, etc. Some folks with REAL world work experience! I think we have had more than enough lawyers and such!
LAWYER: One skilled in circumventing the law. Put them back in the back alley law offices where they belong!