Thursday, March 10, 2016

Gridlock: It Could Be Much Worse

Well after ~11 days behind the Great Chinese Fire Wall...  I have made it to the land of the rising sun and internet freedom.  Unfortunately I am boarding soon so I will post Laurie's links for now.
"When you are back in town and interested in blogging again here is a link that I think makes an interesting topic.

Constitutional Crisis and Political Stalemate

You may think continued gridlock is a good idea. I sort of agree, as the continuation of dysfunctional govt is much better than Trump or Cruz as president.
Yeah.  Imagine if Cruz wins and the GOP controls the House and Senate...  :-( 

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the closest we have come to a constitutional crisis came in the presidential election of 200 when the possibility that the state of Florida would defy lawful court orders was averted by the Supreme Court's decision in Gore v. State.

As for the constitutional nature of our current situation in Washington, the founders didn't like parties, created a system which made them difficult to be effect how could it possibly be the case that when one or for that matter both party's legitimacy is questioned, the result would be a crisis which is specifically constitutional in nature. The risk always in creating a system with checks and balances is that the whole thing will seize and become unable to function, a perfectly foreseeable result then and now.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Hiram, I like your take on this one. Unfortunately, "factions" have been embedded in our political system almost from the beginning. It seems almost essential to the process because there are two sides to every question-- yea or nea-- and therefore two "sides" to every debate. The great genius of our political system is the two-party system, rather than 3, 4 or 10. That requires a party to embrace 50+% of the political spectrum to get elected. That's theoretically, of course.

Parties did not become a detriment, IMHO, until they started becoming "victory at all cost" organizations. Democrats launch vicious negative ads to succeed to office, where it then doesn't matter the issue, or the good or ill for the people, but that the Republicans either be made to look bad or to be stymied in everything. If you attain the majority you do things like Obamacare, over unanimous Republican objection. Gridlock is, indeed, preferable, but ONLY depending on what is being proposed (and maybe by whom).

jerrye92002 said...

What's the problem with Cruz? You prefer Trump?

Anonymous said...

Our constitutional system requires consensus, which is certainly different from the British parliamentary system today, and may have been different from the British parliamentary system in the 18th century. I think certain members of the Constitutional convention were concerned that a strong central government without a checking system would abolish slavery. And those concerns were perhaps justified when the largely unchecked, and some would argue, unbalanced, British parliament was able to peaceably abolish slavery in the early 19th century. In America, the cost of creating a system designed to prevent the legal abolition of slavery was the failure and collapse of the constitutional system created in 1787, and the resulting Civil War. We have sort of stumbled along in the wreckage of that system ever since, living by rules whose rationales were discredited at Gettysburg in July of 1863.

--Hiram

John said...

The author of the article is definitely a far Left LL... Totally denying the reality that the Democrats are equally obstinate and to blame for our gridlock. I mean at anytime the Democrats can choose to reduce spending and reduce taxes, however they just keep demanding increased taxes, more government programs and spending. And then there are all the Liberal voices who say the "Tea Party" politicians are not "legitimate".

"The essence of the constitutional crisis is that one of our two parties, the Republicans, has stopped conceding the legitimacy of the Democrats. This has been building for decades, but it became critical under Obama."

"In political science, the concept of legitimacy is essential to a functioning democracy—in two senses: Legitimacy means that the authority of the government is accepted as earned rather than being a function of brute force; and it means that one party accepts that the other is loyal."

"Republican obstructionism today operates against the long-term erosion of American democracy, and it leaves government paralyzed in the face of mounting national problems. That further erodes legitimacy and democracy itself."

"The hollowing out of democracy is reflected in the loss of confidence in public institutions, in the fact that big money has been crowding out citizen participation. Republicans have contributed to this trend by their money-is-speech ideology and by sponsoring measures that make it more difficult to vote—reversing a two- century trend of expanding democracy. Meanwhile, ordinary people feel more and more alienated from both the economy and the system of government.

So we have a constitutional crisis—one party destroying the ability of the government to govern, combined with a crisis of our democracy at a time when we need government to act."

John said...

As I have often said, the GOP kept giving and giving and giving for almost 100 years. I mean they are politicians also and are happy with more government to some point.

However when some GOP politicians finally point out the obvious that the long term trend is not sustainable, the Democrats cry foul. Go figure...

Anonymous said...

Totally denying the reality that the Democrats are equally obstinate and to blame for our gridlock. I mean at anytime the Democrats can choose to reduce spending and reduce taxes,

That's like shrinking the candy bars, raising their prices and then complaining that customers aren't happy with the offer. The deal that should be on the table is perfectly obvious. Higher taxes in exchange for reduced spending. That kind of offer would attract some Democratic support, possibly enough to get passed. The president has proposed things like that. But it doesn't happen because Republicans oppose all tax increases therefore taking the possibility off the table.

I think the constitutional crisis comes not when the legitimacy of parties is called to question, parties not being mentioned in the constitution. Rather it's when the power and authority, and legitimacy of government and it's institutions is seriously challenged. We see this when the results of election are called into question. For example, it would have been a serious constitutional crisis had Democrats contested the George Bush presidency, perhaps on the ground that he did not receive a plurality of the popular vote. We could have argued that he was not a legitimate president and perhaps refused to accept his actions on bills, or refused to consider his Supreme Court nominations, or recognize any of the things the executive branch is entitled to do under the second article of the constitution.

---Hiram

John said...

"The deal that should be on the table is perfectly obvious. Higher taxes in exchange for reduced spending."

Unfortunately the Democrats and Liberals don't accept that deal either. Instead they passed ACA which led to higher expenses and higher taxes. And they demanded that the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans be allowed to lapse while calling the Republicans obstinate and unreasonable for resisting spending increases.

Please remember the reality is this that the cost of the candy bar has been growing faster than the size of the bar for a LONG TIME. At one time it was "10%" of the bar and now it is "~36%" of the bar...

John said...

As for crisis, all of the examples you state above are still solved by the courts as they are supposed to be. I don't see anyone planning to secede any time soon.

As for the new Justice, let's see what the GOP does if Obama actually nominates someone that is a TRUE moderate and impartial candidate.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the Democrats and Liberals don't accept that deal either.

Certainly there would be opposition to it among many liberals. But had Republicans wanted a deal along those lines, it would have certainly been the case that they would have been able to siphon off enough Democratic votes to make it happen. Certainly it is the case that a lot of Democrats were relieved that Republicans never put us to the test on that issue.

ACA is essentially a Republican proposal which needed and received support from Republican constituencies to pass. I would dispute that it has led to higher expenses, but the reason why ACA doesn't have many of the cost control measures I would have favored is that Republicans opposed them. Uncontrolled costs was the payoff to Republican constituencies that were the condition of getting the deal passed.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"...let's see what the GOP does if Obama actually nominates someone that is a TRUE moderate and impartial candidate."

Best laugh I've had today. When did this leopard (Obama) change his stripes?

jerrye92002 said...

Refresh me on the details, please. Were Republicans involved in the drafting of Obamacare? Were they allowed to offer amendments? Did it ever go to conference committee? Did any Republicans vote for it?

Would not gridlock have been preferable?

Anonymous said...

Were Republicans involved in the drafting of Obamacare?

Yes, they were. Obamacare represents an essentially Republican approach to health care issues, and Republicans were involved in the drafting of the proposals both in the house, but particularly in the senate. A health care program crafted withou Republican input would have looked very different indeed. It's not really a question of the lack of Republican involvement in the formulation of Obamacare, it's just that ultimately they did not vote to enact it, something that happened at the very end of a very long process.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

You keep saying that, but there were certainly elements of the process that smacked of sheer partisan gamesmanship. There was the mass substitution of language into an irrelevant bill, the quick seating of Sen. Franken to give them the 60 votes needed, the denial of any possibility to amend and, after passage, the rejection of any or all Republican attempts to improve it, even its obvious flaws. Then consider the completely illegal modifications of the bill by executive action, some of which are ongoing to this day.

What the Republicans say today is that complete repeal is the first step. If it WAS a Republican idea, I don't think they would be saying that.

John said...

Of course they would be saying that... There is no way they could give Obama the credit for passing something that they had sat on for decades.

John said...

Since we will not allow people to die in the streets, making it a legal requirement that everyone have health insurance is the only rational solution. Just like we force everyone to carry liability car insurance.

Sean said...

There were 161 Republican-authored amendments in the final version of the Affordable Care Act.

jerrye92002 said...

"Since we will not allow people to die in the streets, making it a legal requirement that everyone have health insurance is the only rational solution. Just like we force everyone to carry liability car insurance." -- John

Incorrect. We already had a law that said no person could be turned away from a hospital emergency room for lack of insurance, so no "dying in the streets." That wasn't a really good solution, but it was rational and it served its purpose. Problem was, people started using it for non-emergencies. O'care was supposed to eliminate that problem, but actually made it worse.

And I point out that you could simply GIVE everybody health insurance, for free (especially in Bernie-land) and you would not have offered one additional dollar's worth of health CARE. This idea that government can simultaneously control demand, cost, quality and availability, well, words do not suffice.