Congress Decides, not the Pres or SCOTUS
Infidel: The Constitution isn’t the problem. The problem is a Congress not doing its job and being more political than representing its citizens and the nation as a whole. Congress can do many things in the Supreme Court and with the President to bring both to representing the constituency and the nation as a whole. Neither the presidency or SCOTUS not follow what Congress decides.
A good read by Infidel of Ken Melvin’s commentary Flaws and Fixes.
The Constitution empowers Congress to dictate how many judges the Supreme Court has, and what powers it has. Congress has failed to exert its authority to prevent the entrenched ideologues on the Supreme Court from abusing their authority.
The Constitution also empowers Congress to rein in the president in any number of ways which it has simply failed to carry out — indeed, allowing the president to usurp powers that the Constitution allocates to Congress. This process has been going on for generations, not just recently. We’ve allowed the president to evolve into an exalted, almost king-like personage, instead of a bureaucratic functionary carrying out Congress’s will, as he is supposed to be (“three co-equal branches of government” is a fiction — the Constitution clearly makes Congress supreme over the others).
The biggest threat to democracy is actually gerrymandering, which prevents the voters from cleaning house by taking the de facto power to choose Congress away from them and giving it to the dominant political party in each state.
The constitution should prohibit topics that are unfit for political campaigns such as prejudices, bigotry, racism, hatred, religion
- First, nobody could agree on the definitions of most of those things. Nowadays everybody defines most opinions they personally don’t like as prejudice and bigotry.
- Second, this would completely trash the First Amendment.
No damn politician is going to tell me or anybody else what topics we can and cannot talk about or what we can say about them.
As said previously in reply to Ken Melvin’s post, I would agree with Infidel that, although there are Constitutional flaws, the real problem is Congress.
But, I would go one step further and say the problem with the dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. Misguided rules that are supported by both parties. The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. Congress has not dealt with its most basic function, passing a full budget (all 12 appropriations bills) on time, since 1997.
Again, remember these rules and procedures are supported by both parties. House and Senate rules, that can generally be changed by a majority vote, that rotuinely prevent bills from ever getting a vote. Issues with widespread public support and even bipartisan Congressional support go unaddressed.
Immediate relief from Congressional dysfunction and attention to major policy issues could be available if public pressure, protests, and media attention were focused on Congressional rule changes — particularly the discharge petition rule in the House, and the filibuster procedure in the Senate.
I have written extensively on the subject of Congressional rules reform and ways to deal with the issue. Several articles have been published in The Fulcrum and reprinted here on AB.
The Fulcrum: https://thefulcrum.us/search/?q=J.P.+McJefferson
@JP,
William F. Buckley Jr. famously said “A conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop.’ In Congress today we have one Conservative Party (the Democrats) and one Trump cult right wing party (the GOP). The stasis you describe is a consequence of Congress being run by conservatives in the Buckley sense*. Considering what change Trump and his supporters contemplate, perhaps we’re better off with stasis. Although real Congressional power would mean Trump’s impeachement and conviction, an outcome that can be expected co-terminus with the first verified report of porcine aviation.
*I’m sure Buckley and his hero Goldwater would have opposed Trump
Perhaps Buckley and Barry would have opposed Trump, but more likely they would have publicly opposed a few of the loonier Trumpies, while retaining the loyalties of the “very good people” among the MAGAts. Somewhat as they did with the John Birch Society.
“Debunking a Longstanding Myth About William F. Buckley”
@Bob,
Good link. Obviously, what Buckley might or might not think about the MAGA GOP in Congress is a counterfactual. That said, your link does seem to believe that his efforts to detach Welch from the JBS movement had broader impact:
“Still, although Buckley never kicked the society’s ideas or its adherents out of the conservative movement, his criticism of the society carried an underappreciated price to him and his magazine: He lost some subscribers; he endured barbs from allies as a result of his editorials, which had put him in the crosshairs of many leaders of the far right. He may not have excommunicated Birchers from the movement, but he also, arguably, did more than most conservative leaders have done since 2016 to expel the once fringe ideas — staunch isolationism, racism, conspiracy-prone thinking — now flying under the banner of MAGA.
Needless to say, Buckley is no hero to me. And despite his words, he was not a “conservative,” if by that we mean someone who favors facts and evidence over speculation and belief.
(S)tanding athwart history yelling ‘Stop’ is to hold back, make slow; restrict, restrain, prevent, obstruct, hinder, delay history, retard progress …
@Ten,
I’m sure that’s what Buckley meant, but not all “progress” in history proved desirable. See, e.g., Revolution, Bolshevik.