Another reason to dislike our leaders

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I like Frum, a real conservative who doesn't bow before false party icons.

This is one of those Spencerian sentences that has no discernable meaning but sounds like it does.

He's also Canadian and I like Canada.

We are Americans. Do you like the U.S.A.? Perhaps you would prefer a Canadian parliamentary system and a Canadian constitution?

Like I said in the other thread, take it to the courts and let's decide once and for all what the rules are going to be.

-spence

But what if no one takes it to the courts? The fact that it's being mentioned must make the SCOTUS a bit nervous. There is no provision under the judicial power granted to it in the Constitution which gives the Court standing here. Its power extends to cases of law and equity involving a list of items in which Congress's determination on recess is not mentioned nor implied. Further, Article 1, section 7 states "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United Sates . . ." clearly giving Congress the power to decide for itself on questions of adjournment. It can decide for itself when it is in recess.

The power of the Federal Government has been growing out of proportion to that which it was given in the Constitution, and, along with that federal expansion, the power of the POTUS has been growing even more. It was intended by the Founders that Congress, especially the House of Representatives, would be the strongest arm of federal power, with the judicial being the weakest. Strong Presidents have been able through "bully pulpit" demagoguery to force their will on a weakening Congress and thus becoming the strongest branch of government--almost to the point of being responsible for, and looked to for, solving most of the nation's problems, even to defining what the problems are. The Court, through the pretense of "interpretation," has given itself an even more powerful mode of legislation than was granted to Congress. It doesn't have to get elected. Only five judges are required to pass it's mandates. The Congress has become the step-child fighting for its rightful place.

So now we have a President who has taken one more of Congress's prerogatives, and the proposed solution is to let the Court step in and take a piece as well? Do we really want the rise of a monarchic type executive and a judiciary that legislates by opinion rather than merely adjudicates according to law to further weaken the Peoples elected representatives? And all in order to avoid contentions? I say, in the great tradition of American politics, let them sqauble. Let them fight, and delay, and obfuscate, and make it EXTREMELY difficult to pass legislation after legislation (was it 40,000 bills that were passed last year?), and agency after agency. The Federal Government is getting farther and farther away from us, and it is creating a larger and larger unelected bureaucracy which administers more and more portions of our lives, finances, businesses, health . . . It was CLEARLY not meant to be so.

But the British and their Canadian fellow travelers, according to some here, know better. It's like we're about to fight the Revolution all over again. The Tories versus the Rebels. We've had our tea party, now . . . in the original revolution the Tories and the King had the upper hand, but dogged perseverence and stupid British military decisions allowed the Rebels victory . . . and a new republic with a unique system of government was born . . . a system that granted and required individual effort, responsibility, and a virtuous faithfulness to its declared values and to a constant defense of its Constitution. How far we have departed from those requirements, is how far we are from that republic. The Tories would be happy.

[Fishpart]

detbuch, have you been studying The Federalist Papers again?? Seems like you are pointing out the exact things the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

It is a shame that the greatest enemy of the Constitution is the very government that derives its power from it..

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is one of those Spencerian sentences that has no discernable meaning but sounds like it does.

At first glance I thought this was a question, then I realized it was an assertion.

I thought it was pretty obvious. Perhaps you should read up on your Frum.

We are Americans. Do you like the U.S.A.? Perhaps you would prefer a Canadian parliamentary system and a Canadian constitution?

I've done a lot of business in Canada, at least in the eastern half. I've always found Canadians to be gracious, even handed, polite and have a frugality about them that is to be admired.

And the chicks in Ottawa are pretty hot.

Also there's Rush.

Given their politics the notion that they could even birth a person like Frum is note worthy.

But what if no one takes it to the courts? The fact that it's being mentioned must make the SCOTUS a bit nervous. There is no provision under the judicial power granted to it in the Constitution which gives the Court standing here. Its power extends to cases of law and equity involving a list of items in which Congress's determination on recess is not mentioned nor implied. Further, Article 1, section 7 states "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United Sates . . ." clearly giving Congress the power to decide for itself on questions of adjournment. It can decide for itself when it is in recess.

The power of the Federal Government has been growing out of proportion to that which it was given in the Constitution, and, along with that federal expansion, the power of the POTUS has been growing even more. It was intended by the Founders that Congress, especially the House of Representatives, would be the strongest arm of federal power, with the judicial being the weakest. Strong Presidents have been able through "bully pulpit" demagoguery to force their will on a weakening Congress and thus becoming the strongest branch of government--almost to the point of being responsible for, and looked to for, solving most of the nation's problems, even to defining what the problems are. The Court, through the pretense of "interpretation," has given itself an even more powerful mode of legislation than was granted to Congress. It doesn't have to get elected. Only five judges are required to pass it's mandates. The Congress has become the step-child fighting for its rightful place.

So now we have a President who has taken one more of Congress's prerogatives, and the proposed solution is to let the Court step in and take a piece as well? Do we really want the rise of a monarchic type executive and a judiciary that legislates by opinion rather than merely adjudicates according to law to further weaken the Peoples elected representatives? And all in order to avoid contentions? I say, in the great tradition of American politics, let them sqauble. Let them fight, and delay, and obfuscate, and make it EXTREMELY difficult to pass legislation after legislation (was it 40,000 bills that were passed last year?), and agency after agency. The Federal Government is getting farther and farther away from us, and it is creating a larger and larger unelected bureaucracy which administers more and more portions of our lives, finances, businesses, health . . . It was CLEARLY not meant to be so.

But the British and their Canadian fellow travelers, according to some here, know better. It's like we're about to fight the Revolution all over again. The Tories versus the Rebels. We've had our tea party, now . . . in the original revolution the Tories and the King had the upper hand, but dogged perseverence and stupid British military decisions allowed the Rebels victory . . . and a new republic with a unique system of government was born . . . a system that granted and required individual effort, responsibility, and a virtuous faithfulness to its declared values and to a constant defense of its Constitution. How far we have departed from those requirements, is how far we are from that republic. The Tories would be happy.

I like Frum's analysis because as usual he's willing to go after everyone to tell it like it is. This may not go to the courts, but I'll bet it probably will. You've nailed it in stating that the SCOTUS might be nervous...because this is a gray area and precisely the reason it should be in the debate.

If anything Bush increased the power of the Executive Branch during the last 8 years. Given the partisan climate is Obama doing the same or remiss in his duty if he doesn't?

Wouldn't even surprise me if this becomes an issue during the general election.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I like Frum's analysis because as usual he's willing to go after everyone to tell it like it is. This may not go to the courts, but I'll bet it probably will. You've nailed it in stating that the SCOTUS might be nervous...because this is a gray area and precisely the reason it should be in the debate.

I don't see it as a gray area, rather it is a no area. When the Constitution does not grant a power to a branch of government, that branch does not have it. The Constitution expressly states in Article 1, section 5, that "each house may determine the rules of its proceedings . . . ." It does not speak of a judicial power of review over Congress's rules. That omission is not intended as a "gray" area that might be "interpreted" to imply that maybe the Court can review how Congress determines what is a recess, the omission means that it is not the business of either the Court or the President. The Constitution was not meant to be an endless list of minute laws that would encompass every "gray area" of how the government of our republic is structured. That would not be possible, nor desirable. It is a framework that grants limited specifed powers to the branches of government (separation of powers), and within, and only within, those limitations the powers are broad and can expand to unknown limits. The specific powers granted to the Court do not concern Congressional rules. The specific powers granted to Congress do. Likewise, those granted to the President defer to Congress and do not give him the power to define congressional rules. Article 2, section 3, does say that the President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them . . . he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper . . ." He did not do that, with good reason. Filling a vacancy is not an extraordinary occasion and the Senate has a Constitutional duty to advise and consent. Such an adjournment would clearly nullify the Senate's Constitutional obligation. Such an adjournment would be a precedent to forever eliminate that obligation and could not therefore be construed as a proper adjournment.

None of this is to say that if this was brought to the Court that it would refuse (as it should) to judge the matter for lack of standing. Nor can anyone predict, as is witnessed by what the Court has done over the last 75 years, how it would decide. And who would be the plaintiff? Congress, in my opinion, has the clearest case for Presidential overreach than vice versa. But who would bring it on behalf of Congress? Either party might want its President to have the power that Obama just snatched. If the Republicans are confident of winning the presidency this year, why would'nt they want to have such power? And why would the Obama justice dept. bring it. Does the Court entertain a plaintiff against itself?

If anything Bush increased the power of the Executive Branch during the last 8 years. Given the partisan climate is Obama doing the same or remiss in his duty if he doesn't?

Bush is just one of most Presidents that increased Executive power--singling him out is irrelevant, except that he understood that Congress had the power to recess as it wished, so he did not do what Obama has done when Congress recessed pro-forma. His appointments were blocked. Are you implying that it is the duty of the President to expand Executive power at the expense of Congress? How far should it go? Do you want an imperial presidency?

Wouldn't even surprise me if this becomes an issue during the general election.

-spence

Probably

[scottw]

note that "extreme acts" mentioned by Frum with respect to the Republicans were meant to block the growth and scope of the power of government and the "manuevers" are precedented however he wants to characterize them...
.........................

and "extreme acts" by the other side...

"creation of the CFPB itself. Normally, federal regulatory bodies have multiple commissioners, some reserved for the minority party. CFPB has only one commissioner who controls vast and hazy powers over all American finance.

As the CFPB's first head, Cordray would create precedents, define procedures -- and would do so without ever answering a question from Congress."

'Obama's decision to disregard the Senate's maneuvers and push through a Cordray recess appointment all the same -- basically telling the Senate: if you don't like, sue me.'

all unprecedented I think


who is "exteme"?