History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Gridlock In Washington

22 Comments

…means that the government is working exactly the way the Founders intended.

And it doesn’t mean that it excuses dictatorship via executive order. If the president was a real “constitutional scholar,” he’d know that. But there are a lot of things with this president on which he was vastly oversold.

I’d note, by the way, that Posner’s argument is idiotic. Congress has the power to pass legislation. It has no constitutional responsibility to do so, and its failure to do so does not in any way empower the president. The idea was that no law was better than bad law. As ObamaCare proves.

22 thoughts on “Gridlock In Washington”

  1. The gridlock would be non-existant if the Federal Government limited themselves to specific fuctions listed in the Constitution.

    If they managed the military, managed treaties and relations with other nations, protected our inalienable rights and only that, Congress wouldn’t even need to be in session an entire year. And the executive could play a lot of golf.

  2. its failure to do so does not in any way empower the president

    It redirects the president to use powers he already has. The constitution gives the president the power to issue a blanket pardon to every undocumented immigrant. A new law would be a better way to address the problem, but if Congress won’t pass a law, the president has to decide whether it’s better to do nothing or to exercise the (possibly crude) powers he does have.

    2. A pardon would not make them citizens or give them legal status. It would still mean illegal immigrants could be deported, just not face jail time.

    3. Although a pardon would cover them for having come into the country illegally, it couldn’t do a thing about the fact that they’re still in the country illegally, and intend to keep on being illegally in the country. When a man gets a presidential pardon for murder, it doesn’t mean he can go around murdering more people with complete immunity from prosecution.

  3. But its apparently not what the voters want. It looks like Republicans in other states are following Nevada’s lead in taking their party back from the outside religious radicals seeking to hijack it. If this trend continues we just might be able to have a Republican president replace President Obama.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/08/gop-senate-races-_n_5662250.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

    GOP Senate Incumbents 6, Tea Party Challengers 0

    The Huffington Post
    By Samantha Lachman
    Posted: 08/08/2014 1:42 pm EDT
    Updated: 08/08/2014 5:59 pm EDT

    [[[Republicans were looking to avoid nominating candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, who contributed in part to the GOP’s failure to take the Senate in 2010 and 2012. ]]]

    Again, if the Tea Party feels that are in line with History and Destiny then they should form their own party instead of trying to hijack the Republican party for their religious right agenda.

    And for those who will try to claim the Tea Party hasn’t a religious right agenda I renew my challenge to show me a Tea Party candidate who was elected that was an Atheist , for Abortion and against Creationism. So far the silence have been deafening…

      1. Wodun,

        I will take that as proof you are not able to find an example of a successful Tea Party candidate that isn’t part of the religious right.

        1. Like Rand Paul? I also doubt that Eric Cantor would normally be grouped with the religious right.

          1. Sorry, no cigar. FYI

            http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/26/socially-liberal-rand-paul-is-a-media-creation/198621

            “Socially Liberal” Rand Paul Is A Media Creation

            [[[As for RealClearPolitics’ statement that Paul “largely” agrees with his father on social issues – there’s no “largely” about it. According to his chief of staff, Paul opposes abortion in all instances except “to save the life of the mother.” While Paul’s office skirts the question of whether he supports exceptions for rape or incest, he’s on the record opposing such exceptions. ]]]

            and

            [[[Under the Obama administration, Paul charges, U.S. taxpayers are funding an international “war on Christianity.” Speaking before the Christian Homeschool Educators of Kentucky in 2010, Paul appealed to young-earth creationists, refusing to say how old he believes the earth is.]]]

            In short, if he does understand Evolution he is too afraid to admit it in public and have the Tea Party turn against him… And the rest speaks for itself.

          2. This is stupid. There are a lot more Republican voters than the Tea Party. He’s certainly afraid that some creationists will turn against him, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party.

          4. Some people arrive at small-government beliefs via their religion. That doesn’t mean that one must be religious to believe in small government. This just gets stupider and stupider. Have you ever actually had a course in logic?

        2. You don’t have to be an atheist to not advocate for a theocracy or be religious to be against abortion. IOW, they don’t have to take the positions you demand they do in order to prove that they are not what you claim they are.

          I can see an atheist being elected by Tea Party types but not one that campaigned on being a militant atheist.

          For being a Dr of Tea Party studies you cannot even correctly differentiate Tea Party and establishment Republican candidates or the issues motivating the Tea Party apart from those held by the larger Republican group.

          1. Ah, another anonymous troll. Sorry, but when I see folks being fooled by an astrotruf movement I feel the need to speak out. Do you really believe President Obama would have been re-elected except that the Tea Party undermined the Republic primaries with their candidates and rhetoric?

    2. Abortion is in the GOP Platform. On the other hand, a poll by CBS/NYT found only 18% of TEA Party supporters said social issues were more important to them than economic issues.

  4. I plowed through the first 50 or so comments on the Slate article. Depressing to see how much sentiment there is for abandoning democracy. They’ve gone beyond “We won” as an argument, to “You should let us do what we want because we control a piece of the government.”
    I can’t wait to see the howls from that crowd the next time there is a non-Democrat president.

    1. Well, it’s going to be ponies till the end of time so we don’t have to worry about the consequences of our actions. Unless we’re evil corporations, of course.

Comments are closed.