It’s true that the Constitution does not explicitly say that the Court has final authority on these matters. It has it because the Court claimed these powers for itself and because no one took them out into the street and shot them for coup.
But the Constitution is silent on the final authority. So who should it be?
I’ve suggested to friends that a Constitutional interpretation approved by 2/3rds of the House of Reps in two consecutive terms should be able to override a Court decision as to the nature of the law. But so far I haven’t seen a lot of support for that position, or any other really.
Yay for the status quo!
Well if it’s going to stand as it currently is then the supremes should be term limited.
If the Senate was doing its’ job (my, what a novel concept) the Supremes would be limited. Impeachment, anyone?
The Senate is the most dysfunctional institution in the U.S. government. And that’s saying a lot.
I don’t think I agree that the federal courts shouldn’t be able to generally invalidate laws or portions of laws based on them being unconstitutional. Without that power, the courts are entirely too weak, in the constitutional sense.
However, each branch should be viewed as co-equal in its power, right, and ability to interpret the Constitution. In effect, judicial review is like the veto power that Roman magistrates had over each other, the Senate, etc. This seems appropriate, as Congress has the legislative power to make and unmake laws, and the president has the veto power (which, of course, Congress has the power to override). In addition, the executive can simply refuse to enforce laws that it views as unconstitutional.
McGehee and Pro Libertate are both right.
McGehee, do you think repealing the 17th would help?
The association of “states’ rights” with racial prejudice has really hurt the federalist system. The states are supposed to participate in the federal checks and balance process. Part of that came from the states having powers that the federal government didn’t, part from the states’ ability to control certain aspects of the electoral process, and part from state legislatures electing senators.
The Senate was intentionally created to not be a purely representative (in the democratic sense) body. The senators should be representing the interests of their respective states (and the nation as a whole, of course), but not the general population. It’s not a huge distinction, but it is significant. In theory, the Senate should be a collection of wise old men and women who have a somewhat more sophisticated and long-term view of events than the House, which has much more populist tendencies.
I think the Progressives went after the Senate purely to remove a roadblock to popular control of the government. Since this was exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent, it’s no wonder that the conversion of the Senate to House+ has been followed by an expansion of government. The 16th Amendment helped that process along quite a bit, as well.
Pro Liibertate, could you flesh out your 2nd paragraph with an example or two, showing how the two different systems of selecting Senators would lead to the Senate deciding differently on a matter of state?
Obviously I’d be interested in anyone else’s examples too. I just don’t see it — maybe because I’ve grown up in Illinois, which has a disfunctional statehouse.
As an aside, one which doesn’t relate to Pro Libertate’s point, Obama probably couldn’t have been elected Senator under the old system, despite the bipartisan respect he received in Springfield. But I don’t think you would have liked who would have gone to the Senate instead of Obama.
Well, the theory is that the legislature-appointed Senators would be more isolated from the currents of popular opinion than the ones that are popularly elected. Their constituency would be the state legislature, not the general population. On the other hand, they wouldn’t be entirely isolated from the people, as the people of the state, of course, elect the state legislature. The basic idea is that this would add/restore another check on federal power.
One of the stated reasons for passing the 17th was that bribery and influence-peddling at the state legislature level was corrupting senators. As we’ve seen, now all that corruption happens in one-stop shopping in DC. If we’ve got to endure such things, better to make it harder by dispersing the forces of corruption to the fifty states.
I’m not suggesting the 17th-less system would be great by any stretch. We’d hate state-appointed senators, too. It would just give us an additional check on federal power. At this point, we should all want more of that.
I find it surreally amusing that Jeri Ryan, in essence, gave the world first Senator, then President, Obama. The influence of Star Trek strikes again! ☺
Thanks, but I meant a particular example or scenario. Here’s one: take Senator Shelby’s foolishness on Ares. Would he have been selected by his state legislature? If not, is there any reason to think that the person selected would have been any wiser?
Maybe Shelby is a bad example. The classic examples of where the Senate is wiser than the House usually involve foreign relations. But would a Senator selected by a state legislature be more likely to be wiser about foreign relations than one elected directly by the people? I don’t know about your state, but in my state, state officials seem very good at a certain corrupt sort of deal, but don’t seem very sharp when it comes to foreign relations.
My state is likely to send Republican Mark Kirk to the Senate. I’m very disappointed with who ended up being the Democratic candidate, but I have to admit that Kirk isn’t a horrible choice. Kirk is a weasel when campaigning – he can’t decide if he is a moderate or a conservative, but he actually knows something about the military, he actually knows something about foreign affairs, he actually knows something about how the Federal government works. He ins’t a bad choice at all. He would have never been selected by the Illinois state legislature, regardless of which party was in power. He has connections (he was on the staff of a former senator) but he doesn’t have the right kind of connections necessary to get selected by our statehouse.
By the way, I strongly believe that Obama would have beat Jack Ryan fair and square. I believe the polling prior to the reveleations about Ryan bolsters that view, although that’s from memory, and in any case, it was too early for polling to tell us much. I wish Obama had beat Ryan, not so much for Obama’s sake, but so that Ryan would have been more likely to continue in politics in some other capacity.
I expect that state-appointed senators would fight harder for state interests, which in some cases would give us bad results. In the case of, say, the shuttle program, senators from Alabama and Florida would be even more rigorous in their defense of state jobs programs.
However, I think we’d benefit from the fact that these state interests wouldn’t always jibe with popular interests within the state (meaning that the House representatives might go a different direction) and that other states would have different interests.
About Obama-Ryan, my recollection is that Ryan was pretty danged popular. I doubt Obama would’ve won without the scandal.
Ryan was popular — many Democrats like me liked him, even if we weren’t going to vote for him over Obama. Ryan came from the tradition of likable big-government moderate midwestern Republicans, like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty. 🙂
I looked it up the 2004 IL Senate race – Obama was leading in the polls 52% to 30% before Ryan’s records were unsealed. I readily admit this doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been close, as the poll was taken 5 months before the election (it was the first and only poll taken after the two men won their primaries but before Ryan dropped out.) It is possible people still had Ryan confused with two other Republican Ryans — scandal-plagued and now imprisoned Gov. George Ryan, as well as Il attny. general Jim Ryan.
This Ryan-Obama race, as well as the Republican Ryan confusion, is more relevant than I first realized. The people who selected kooky Alan Keyes of Maryland over all the more qualified people from Illinois are the people who you think should would do a good job selecting Senators. Obama had a lot of fun debating Keyes, but statehouse politicians in the Illinois Republican party like imprisoned governor George Ryan, are the ones who selected Keyes. These statehouse politicians did the people of Illinois a disservice, and I’m glad they don’t regularly select Senators.
But back to the main point: I’m not sure I can think of a case where “state interests wouldn’t always jibe with popular interests within the state”. It is an interesting claim, and I’m not criticizing – it is just that I can’t think of an actual example.
It’s interesting to see one post on this blog arguing (or supporting an argument) that the Supreme Court can’t overturn a popularly-voted-on law, followed by one that hopes they will do just that.
Which is it? Weak or strong Supreme Court?
I neither argued or supported the argument. I merely point out that it was an interesting argument. But don’t let your reading miscomprehension get in the way of your commenting. And even if I did support the argument, there’s no conflict between wanting the courts not to have such power, and wanting them to employ it to useful ends while they still do.
Actually there is quite a bit of conflict between the two positions. If the Supreme Court were limited in its power, health care reform would be the law and there would be absolutely nothing you could do about it. Saying that you “want them to employ it to useful ends while they still do” means that you want them to rule the way you want, then shut the door on future applicants.
Saying that you “want them to employ it to useful ends while they still do” means that you want them to rule the way you want, then shut the door on future applicants.
Yes. So?
There is still no conflict, sorry. Any more than believing that NASA shouldn’t be funded at all, but if it is, I’d like it to do something useful.
It’s true that the Constitution does not explicitly say that the Court has final authority on these matters. It has it because the Court claimed these powers for itself and because no one took them out into the street and shot them for coup.
But the Constitution is silent on the final authority. So who should it be?
I’ve suggested to friends that a Constitutional interpretation approved by 2/3rds of the House of Reps in two consecutive terms should be able to override a Court decision as to the nature of the law. But so far I haven’t seen a lot of support for that position, or any other really.
Yay for the status quo!
Well if it’s going to stand as it currently is then the supremes should be term limited.
If the Senate was doing its’ job (my, what a novel concept) the Supremes would be limited. Impeachment, anyone?
The Senate is the most dysfunctional institution in the U.S. government. And that’s saying a lot.
I don’t think I agree that the federal courts shouldn’t be able to generally invalidate laws or portions of laws based on them being unconstitutional. Without that power, the courts are entirely too weak, in the constitutional sense.
However, each branch should be viewed as co-equal in its power, right, and ability to interpret the Constitution. In effect, judicial review is like the veto power that Roman magistrates had over each other, the Senate, etc. This seems appropriate, as Congress has the legislative power to make and unmake laws, and the president has the veto power (which, of course, Congress has the power to override). In addition, the executive can simply refuse to enforce laws that it views as unconstitutional.
McGehee and Pro Libertate are both right.
McGehee, do you think repealing the 17th would help?
The association of “states’ rights” with racial prejudice has really hurt the federalist system. The states are supposed to participate in the federal checks and balance process. Part of that came from the states having powers that the federal government didn’t, part from the states’ ability to control certain aspects of the electoral process, and part from state legislatures electing senators.
The Senate was intentionally created to not be a purely representative (in the democratic sense) body. The senators should be representing the interests of their respective states (and the nation as a whole, of course), but not the general population. It’s not a huge distinction, but it is significant. In theory, the Senate should be a collection of wise old men and women who have a somewhat more sophisticated and long-term view of events than the House, which has much more populist tendencies.
I think the Progressives went after the Senate purely to remove a roadblock to popular control of the government. Since this was exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent, it’s no wonder that the conversion of the Senate to House+ has been followed by an expansion of government. The 16th Amendment helped that process along quite a bit, as well.
Pro Liibertate, could you flesh out your 2nd paragraph with an example or two, showing how the two different systems of selecting Senators would lead to the Senate deciding differently on a matter of state?
Obviously I’d be interested in anyone else’s examples too. I just don’t see it — maybe because I’ve grown up in Illinois, which has a disfunctional statehouse.
As an aside, one which doesn’t relate to Pro Libertate’s point, Obama probably couldn’t have been elected Senator under the old system, despite the bipartisan respect he received in Springfield. But I don’t think you would have liked who would have gone to the Senate instead of Obama.
Well, the theory is that the legislature-appointed Senators would be more isolated from the currents of popular opinion than the ones that are popularly elected. Their constituency would be the state legislature, not the general population. On the other hand, they wouldn’t be entirely isolated from the people, as the people of the state, of course, elect the state legislature. The basic idea is that this would add/restore another check on federal power.
One of the stated reasons for passing the 17th was that bribery and influence-peddling at the state legislature level was corrupting senators. As we’ve seen, now all that corruption happens in one-stop shopping in DC. If we’ve got to endure such things, better to make it harder by dispersing the forces of corruption to the fifty states.
I’m not suggesting the 17th-less system would be great by any stretch. We’d hate state-appointed senators, too. It would just give us an additional check on federal power. At this point, we should all want more of that.
I find it surreally amusing that Jeri Ryan, in essence, gave the world first Senator, then President, Obama. The influence of Star Trek strikes again! ☺
Thanks, but I meant a particular example or scenario. Here’s one: take Senator Shelby’s foolishness on Ares. Would he have been selected by his state legislature? If not, is there any reason to think that the person selected would have been any wiser?
Maybe Shelby is a bad example. The classic examples of where the Senate is wiser than the House usually involve foreign relations. But would a Senator selected by a state legislature be more likely to be wiser about foreign relations than one elected directly by the people? I don’t know about your state, but in my state, state officials seem very good at a certain corrupt sort of deal, but don’t seem very sharp when it comes to foreign relations.
My state is likely to send Republican Mark Kirk to the Senate. I’m very disappointed with who ended up being the Democratic candidate, but I have to admit that Kirk isn’t a horrible choice. Kirk is a weasel when campaigning – he can’t decide if he is a moderate or a conservative, but he actually knows something about the military, he actually knows something about foreign affairs, he actually knows something about how the Federal government works. He ins’t a bad choice at all. He would have never been selected by the Illinois state legislature, regardless of which party was in power. He has connections (he was on the staff of a former senator) but he doesn’t have the right kind of connections necessary to get selected by our statehouse.
By the way, I strongly believe that Obama would have beat Jack Ryan fair and square. I believe the polling prior to the reveleations about Ryan bolsters that view, although that’s from memory, and in any case, it was too early for polling to tell us much. I wish Obama had beat Ryan, not so much for Obama’s sake, but so that Ryan would have been more likely to continue in politics in some other capacity.
I expect that state-appointed senators would fight harder for state interests, which in some cases would give us bad results. In the case of, say, the shuttle program, senators from Alabama and Florida would be even more rigorous in their defense of state jobs programs.
However, I think we’d benefit from the fact that these state interests wouldn’t always jibe with popular interests within the state (meaning that the House representatives might go a different direction) and that other states would have different interests.
About Obama-Ryan, my recollection is that Ryan was pretty danged popular. I doubt Obama would’ve won without the scandal.
Ryan was popular — many Democrats like me liked him, even if we weren’t going to vote for him over Obama. Ryan came from the tradition of likable big-government moderate midwestern Republicans, like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty. 🙂
I looked it up the 2004 IL Senate race – Obama was leading in the polls 52% to 30% before Ryan’s records were unsealed. I readily admit this doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been close, as the poll was taken 5 months before the election (it was the first and only poll taken after the two men won their primaries but before Ryan dropped out.) It is possible people still had Ryan confused with two other Republican Ryans — scandal-plagued and now imprisoned Gov. George Ryan, as well as Il attny. general Jim Ryan.
This Ryan-Obama race, as well as the Republican Ryan confusion, is more relevant than I first realized. The people who selected kooky Alan Keyes of Maryland over all the more qualified people from Illinois are the people who you think should would do a good job selecting Senators. Obama had a lot of fun debating Keyes, but statehouse politicians in the Illinois Republican party like imprisoned governor George Ryan, are the ones who selected Keyes. These statehouse politicians did the people of Illinois a disservice, and I’m glad they don’t regularly select Senators.
But back to the main point: I’m not sure I can think of a case where “state interests wouldn’t always jibe with popular interests within the state”. It is an interesting claim, and I’m not criticizing – it is just that I can’t think of an actual example.
It’s interesting to see one post on this blog arguing (or supporting an argument) that the Supreme Court can’t overturn a popularly-voted-on law, followed by one that hopes they will do just that.
Which is it? Weak or strong Supreme Court?
I neither argued or supported the argument. I merely point out that it was an interesting argument. But don’t let your reading miscomprehension get in the way of your commenting. And even if I did support the argument, there’s no conflict between wanting the courts not to have such power, and wanting them to employ it to useful ends while they still do.
Actually there is quite a bit of conflict between the two positions. If the Supreme Court were limited in its power, health care reform would be the law and there would be absolutely nothing you could do about it. Saying that you “want them to employ it to useful ends while they still do” means that you want them to rule the way you want, then shut the door on future applicants.
Saying that you “want them to employ it to useful ends while they still do” means that you want them to rule the way you want, then shut the door on future applicants.
Yes. So?
There is still no conflict, sorry. Any more than believing that NASA shouldn’t be funded at all, but if it is, I’d like it to do something useful.