The next 2, 4, 8 years

[Texsox]

Let's look at how our government is designed. First off the framers split the power between the states and the federal governments. Then they divided the federal power between three branches. Then divided the legislative branch in half. Then tossed in checks and balances, further diluting the power.

 

Then we send someone or some group to Washington and complain when they single handidly can't get anything major done. Well guess what, that is by design and something we all should be grateful for, no matter which side of the aisle you agree with.

[StrangeSox]

The fatal flaw in your argument is that many of the founders were opposed to political parties and the sort of divisiveness we see now. Their intention wasn't to make government ineffective at getting any serious work done.

[Texsox]

The fatal flaw in your argument is that many of the founders were opposed to political parties and the sort of divisiveness we see now. Their intention wasn't to make government ineffective at getting any serious work done.

 

 

I'm not certain where you get that idea from. Certainly George Washington was against them, but Jefferson, Hamilton, and a host of others were not against them. I've never seen much where the topic was even that well discussed. If you have a source, I'd be very interested in learning more. I am about to teach that in a few weeks.

[Jenksismyhero]

The fatal flaw in your argument is that many of the founders were opposed to political parties and the sort of divisiveness we see now. Their intention wasn't to make government ineffective at getting any serious work done.

 

Dude, you crack me up. The stimulus, health care reform and finance reform. Are those "serious" pieces of legislation?

 

Stop being so dramatic about the GOP not agreeing to go with anything and everything the Dems wanted to do. That's precisely the reason our government was set up the way it was. One party wasn't supposed to get control and run wild with whatever they wanted.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not certain where you get that idea from. Certainly George Washington was against them, but Jefferson, Hamilton, and a host of others were not against them. I've never seen much where the topic was even that well discussed. If you have a source, I'd be very interested in learning more. I am about to teach that in a few weeks.

 

Read a lot of Hamilton and Adams. Check out the Federalist Papers. They were smart and figured out that parties just lead to factions. It's one of the reasons checks/balances became an important element.

 

Edit: and I don't remember reading anything about them being concerned with inefficient government because of a party system. I should have added Madison too. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

Edited November 3, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Our government wasn't set up with political parties. Tex is right to correct my statement--Washington vehemently opposed them, but they simply didn't exist when the government was formed. So, the idea of part of the checks and balances being minority party opposition doesn't fly. Party politics weren't a consideration.

 

The stimulus, hcr and finance reform were all trimmed down versions of what they should have been. Not entirely because of republican/conservative opposition, mind you, but there's a reason a lot of liberals are dissatisfied with the last two years. You'd be correct to fix the first sentence of your second paragraph by striking out "and everything".

[Balta1701]

Our government wasn't set up with political parties. Tex is right to correct my statement--Washington vehemently opposed them, but they simply didn't exist when the government was formed. So, the idea of part of the checks and balances being minority party opposition doesn't fly. Party politics weren't a consideration.

 

The stimulus, hcr and finance reform were all trimmed down versions of what they should have been. Not entirely because of republican/conservative opposition, mind you, but there's a reason a lot of liberals are dissatisfied with the last two years. You'd be correct to fix the first sentence of your second paragraph by striking out "and everything".

He has a point though...the government was set up to make it difficult to get stuff done.

 

The issue I'd take is that the rules keep changing, to the point that it could well make the country ungovernable. Not just on bills like those...but there are flat out things that we can't solve right now. We can't get enough judges confirmed to run the judiciary. We can't get normal people in the executive branch confirmed. We can't get Nobel prize winners confirmed to the Federal Reserve, and they have to operate under emergency rules because they can't make policy otherwise. We can't learn who is paying for our elections.

[StrangeSox]

Read a lot of Hamilton and Adams. Check out the Federalist Papers. They were smart and figured out that parties just lead to factions. It's one of the reasons checks/balances became an important element.

 

Edit: and I don't remember reading anything about them being concerned with inefficient government because of a party system. I should have added Madison too. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

 

Your wiki link makes my point:

 

Application

 

Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the Founding Fathers and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be partisan. For instance, United States Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens cites the paper for the statement, "Parties ranked high on the list of evils that the Constitution was designed to check."[16] Discussing a California provision that forbids candidates from running as independents within one year of holding a partisan affiliation, Justice Byron White made apparent the Court's belief that Madison spoke for the framers of the Constitution: "California apparently believes with the Founding Fathers that splintered parties and unrestrained factionalism may do significant damage to the fabric of government. See The Federalist, No. 10 (Madison)."[17]

 

Madison's argument that restraining liberty to limit faction is an unacceptable solution has been used by opponents of campaign finance limits. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, invoked Federalist No. 10 in a dissent against a ruling supporting limits on campaign contributions, writing: "The Framers preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive 'cure' for faction that the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy."[18]

 

ergo political party counter-balance in Congress was not an intended feature of the government.

 

edit: maybe I was reading more into Tex's statement than was there. Yes, the government was designed to be somewhat cumbersome and not react to populist changes, but that's been taken to a new level.

Edited November 3, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Our government wasn't set up with political parties. Tex is right to correct my statement--Washington vehemently opposed them, but they simply didn't exist when the government was formed. So, the idea of part of the checks and balances being minority party opposition doesn't fly. Party politics weren't a consideration.

 

The stimulus, hcr and finance reform were all trimmed down versions of what they should have been. Not entirely because of republican/conservative opposition, mind you, but there's a reason a lot of liberals are dissatisfied with the last two years. You'd be correct to fix the first sentence of your second paragraph by striking out "and everything".

 

Except that this issue was clearly discussed while the Constitution was being drafted.

[StrangeSox]

Except that this issue was clearly discussed while the Constitution was being drafted.

 

And was determined to be wrong, and therefore wasn't a part of the designed "checks and balances"

 

For instance, United States Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens cites the paper for the statement, "Parties ranked high on the list of evils that the Constitution was designed to check."

[NorthSideSox72]

He has a point though...the government was set up to make it difficult to get stuff done.

 

The issue I'd take is that the rules keep changing, to the point that it could well make the country ungovernable. Not just on bills like those...but there are flat out things that we can't solve right now. We can't get enough judges confirmed to run the judiciary. We can't get normal people in the executive branch confirmed. We can't get Nobel prize winners confirmed to the Federal Reserve, and they have to operate under emergency rules because they can't make policy otherwise. We can't learn who is paying for our elections.

I do agree with one aspect here - that the 60 vote hurdle in the Senate is stupid and makes governing less effective.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

And was determined to be wrong, and therefore wasn't a part of the designed "checks and balances"

 

We're not arguing the same issue here. I'm saying that the drafters of the Constitution were aware of the negatives of political parties and factions, including their ability to take over government and run amok to the detriment at all, and made governing more cumbersome because of it. Justice Stevens right there says they knew these groups were detrimental, and designed the Constitution to check against them.

 

If anything I'd agree that the collusion of the branches of government and the growing authority of the executive wasn't intended. The President is the end all be all of politics today. And unless Congress follows, despite being the in same party, nothing gets done. Congress was supposed to be THE branch of government to govern, while the President was to simply enforce what they produced. It's the opposite now. Today the President mandates legislation and forces the Congress to follow.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

We're not arguing the same issue here. I'm saying that the drafters of the Constitution were aware of the negatives of political parties and factions, including their ability to take over government and run amok to the detriment at all, and made governing more cumbersome because of it. Justice Stevens right there says they new these groups were detrimental, and designed the Constitution to check against them.

 

If anything I'd agree that the collusion of the branches of government and the growing authority of the executive wasn't intended. The President is the end all be all of politics today. And unless Congress follows, despite being the in same party, nothing gets done. Congress was supposed to be THE branch of government to govern, while the President was to simply enforce what they produced. It's the opposite now. Today the President mandates legislation and forces the Congress to follow.

But...a key part of why that has happened is that the President also assumes the role of leader of his or her party. The President's authority over the Congress comes about in no small part because of the party system itself. Sure there have been other changes (i.e. the fact that it's no longer necessary to issue a declaration of war) but that is a key part of the problem you identify.

[StrangeSox]

We're not arguing the same issue here. I'm saying that the drafters of the Constitution were aware of the negatives of political parties and factions, including their ability to take over government and run amok to the detriment at all, and made governing more cumbersome because of it. Justice Stevens right there says they knew these groups were detrimental, and designed the Constitution to check against them.

 

If anything I'd agree that the collusion of the branches of government and the growing authority of the executive wasn't intended. The President is the end all be all of politics today. And unless Congress follows, despite being the in same party, nothing gets done. Congress was supposed to be THE branch of government to govern, while the President was to simply enforce what they produced. It's the opposite now. Today the President mandates legislation and forces the Congress to follow.

 

Oh yeah well I....but..ug...I agree.

 

My point was that the system wasn't designed with the current realities in mind, and that it's significantly harder to pass legislation, particularly in the Senate, than when the Senate first formed.

 

The executive has consistently expanded, and it's not like Obama is doing anything to stop that.

[Balta1701]

Oh...and 1 more point...if you have a problem with the growing power of the executive branch...a stagnant Congress that can't get anything done is the worst possible setup, because like it or not, things need to be done. Events happen that need to be reacted to, treaties need to be signed, policy needs to be made.

 

If the Congress can't function, say because of a supermajority requirement...then what is going to happen when policy needs to be made? The executive branch is going to find a way to implement that policy without Congress's approval or disapproval.

 

Case in point; Congress isn't going to act on climate change. In the next 2 years...the EPA will.

[Soxbadger]

Not to speak for Tex, but I do not believe that is a flaw in his argument. A lot of people are a lot of things on paper. But besides for Washington, which of the founding fathers was not part of a political party? Which of the founding fathers didnt either join the Federalists or the Democratic Republicans? While Washington was "independent" he had enormous support from Hamilton, the founder of the Federalists.

 

Furthermore, if you look at the Federalist v Democratic Republicans, you see a troubling similarity to today's politics. After 200 years we are still fighting the same battles. Democratic Republicans fighting for strict construction of the constitution and states rights, Federalists fighting for a more powerful federal govt.

 

The reality is that even back then the founding fathers understood that the United States was nothing more than a collaboration of states, who were only working together because the other option (British subjects) was far less tolerable. When you have an enemy, or some other threat, people tend to forget smaller differences and focus on the whole.

 

There is no other country like the United States, we are fortunately or unfortunately, unique. We are a conglomeration of people who have come to this country for many different reasons with many different ideals. Our shared identity is still being shaped, we do not have hundreds of years of being "American" to tie us together. It has yet to be seen what will happen with a nation such as ours.

 

Over time we will either grow together or splinter apart, but the US idea of checks and balances, did want to make sure that majorities would not be able to quickly enact change. There are reasons why the Senate was voted on by the state legislature and the House by the people. In my opinion its because they believed the people were to fickle on a national scale. That they would be to quick to change things, and that the Senate would stabilize the swing in the House. There is a reason why every state has equal say in the Senate, its to make sure that the larger states could not quickly make change to the disadvantage of the smaller states.

 

The system was created to be slow, the system was created to withstand the whims of the common person.

 

In my opinion the fatal flaw is that we put the opinion of the founding fathers on a pedestal. They were good enlightenment thinkers, but the times have changed. To put it in perspective, not one of them was alive to read the Communist Manifesto nor did they ever witness the Civil War. The founding fathers were extremely liberal for their time (I use liberal in the classic sense as opposed to conservative), why do we believe that they wouldnt have been extremely liberal in any time?

[Jenksismyhero]

But...a key part of why that has happened is that the President also assumes the role of leader of his or her party. The President's authority over the Congress comes about in no small part because of the party system itself. Sure there have been other changes (i.e. the fact that it's no longer necessary to issue a declaration of war) but that is a key part of the problem you identify.

 

To me, the fact that they created a bicameral system with different membership, voting, and representation requirements just makes it obvious that they were guarding against any majority faction, including the President becoming a leader of one. So, while they might not have expressly intended to have minority parties as a counter to the majority, in effect they did.

[Jenksismyhero]

Oh...and 1 more point...if you have a problem with the growing power of the executive branch...a stagnant Congress that can't get anything done is the worst possible setup, because like it or not, things need to be done. Events happen that need to be reacted to, treaties need to be signed, policy needs to be made.

 

If the Congress can't function, say because of a supermajority requirement...then what is going to happen when policy needs to be made? The executive branch is going to find a way to implement that policy without Congress's approval or disapproval.

 

Case in point; Congress isn't going to act on climate change. In the next 2 years...the EPA will.

 

Two points - (1) This is why I said in the other thread that I'm 100% positive that absent 9/11, after the Clinton/Newt years, the Dems would have stonewalled the s*** out of Bush, but they couldn't because most of what he did in his first term was reaction to the attack, so the Dems voted along with them, and used the "oh see! we worked together, why can't they play nice?" angle in 2004 and 2006."

 

(2) This is a rare event, and absent national emergencies, it's what the founders intended when they made the act of legislating a slow and collective effort.

 

[Balta1701]

Two points - (1) This is why I said in the other thread that I'm 100% positive that absent 9/11, after the Clinton/Newt years, the Dems would have stonewalled the s*** out of Bush, but they couldn't because most of what he did in his first term was reaction to the attack, so the Dems voted along with them, and used the "oh see! we worked together, why can't they play nice?" angle in 2004 and 2006."

I think you're totally wrong on that and it's pretty easy to back that up. Bush's 2 biggest legislative accomplishments were both passed in 2001, pre-9/11, with significant Democratic support (at least in the House)...his upper level tax cuts and No-Child Left Behind.

 

Had he been subject to a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, particularly on those tax cuts, they probably wouldn't have gone through...or at least they'd have had to be much, much smaller. They used reconciliation rules to get through with a 51-50 win to get as large of an upper level tax cut as possible.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think you're totally wrong on that and it's pretty easy to back that up. Bush's 2 biggest legislative accomplishments were both passed in 2001, pre-9/11, with significant Democratic support (at least in the House)...his upper level tax cuts and No-Child Left Behind.

 

Had he been subject to a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate, particularly on those tax cuts, they probably wouldn't have gone through...or at least they'd have had to be much, much smaller. They used reconciliation rules to get through with a 51-50 win to get as large of an upper level tax cut as possible.

 

really? so when we hear about these bills they're considered bipartisan? I could have sworn we say things like "Bush's tax cuts."

[Balta1701]

really? so when we hear about these bills they're considered bipartisan? I could have sworn we say things like "Bush's tax cuts."

We'd love to have the tax cuts in the Stimulus package called the "Obama Tax cuts". That's excellent framing, it gives that guy credit.

[Texsox]

Nice discussion. A couple thoughts I'd like to add

 

Whether we call them political parties or not, clearly the framers understood that like minded leaders would get together and advance their views. That is the only way a bill would pass with a majority. Perhaps they felt those bonds would be less restrictive and more active. Forming and dissolving over each issue instead of forming over each election. I believe political parties are a natural occurance, people form alliances all the time and in every setting, of course they will here also. The question would be how to eliminate the label and the organization of it. Somehow allow those alliances to form without the group pressure. I'm not certain the American public could handle it.

 

What we have today is less independence from every representative regardless of the initial before their name.

[Paint it Black]

Is this where I can point out that Dems tried to include republican ideas in the health care reform bill and republicans put their fingers in their ears and went "la la la can't hear you?"

[Rex Kickass]

really? so when we hear about these bills they're considered bipartisan? I could have sworn we say things like "Bush's tax cuts."

 

We also call it Obamacare, when what ended up happening was a Frankenbill that didn't really resemble Obama's original proposals.

[Balta1701]

We also call it Obamacare, when what ended up happening was a Frankenbill that didn't really resemble Obama's original proposals.

Al Franken wrote the bill? Gosh, I'd have figured he'd have included a public option.