As many on this blog know, I often object to those who criticize our Constitution as a way of excusing their circumvention of civil liberties or the separation of powers. Some in the Bush Administration took that position in suggesting that our Constitution was somehow a contributor to the 9-11 attacks — in their push to pass the Patriot Act. President Obama seems to take up a similar lament to rationalize his repeated violation of the separation of powers in recent years. Obama raised the issue with donors to suggest that the Framers got it wrong in their design of Congress and Article I of the Constitution. Indeed, he appears to be a critic of the “Great Compromise” that gave small states an equal voice in the Senate. It is of course not his assuming legislative and judicial powers in the creation of what I have called an “uber presidency” that fundamentally changed our system. There is no real need for compromise of any kind in the new emerging model of executive power so it should not be a surprise that “Great Compromise” would appear particularly precious and unnecessary.
I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. Obama has repeatedly suspended provisions of the health care law and made unilateral changes that were previously rejected by Congress. He has also moved hundreds of millions from one part of the Act to other parts without congressional approval. Now, his administration is reportedly changing key provisions of the ACA to potentially make billions of dollars available to the insurance industry in a move that was never debated, let alone approved, by the legislative branch. I just ran another column this month listing such incidents of executive over-reach that ideally would have included this potentially huge commitment under Obama’s claimed discretionary authority.
President Obama is now responding by attacking the Constitution and saying that James Madison and others simply got it wrong by guaranteeing equal voting in the United States Senate. Of course, he has not shared such views with the public. Instead, he discussed them with a small group of Democratic donors who are facing increasing opposition from friends in supporting Obama. Obama met with these donors in a private event in Chicago and put the blame on the Framers: “Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage.” These comments also appear on an official transcript. The President does not call to change the Constitution but laments about the structure of the Senate and the equality of small and large states.
Not to spoil the new post hoc spin but I find it less than obvious. The “disadvantage” that the President has been complaining about is the refusal of Congress to do what he has demanded. Ironically, he has faced more consistent opposition in the House, not the Senate. The House is divided according to population, which Obama appears to prefer.
The problem is not the Constitution but the division in the country. We are divided on a great number of issues. Roughly fifty percent of Americans hate Obamacare and want it repealed. Immigration and other issues continue to divide voters in both parties. While we have a representative democracy, it still has democratic elements. Congress reflects the divisions in the country. When we go through periods of division, fewer things get done and really big reforms or changes are particularly difficult. However, such division is no license to “go at it alone” as the President has promised. The Madisonian system is designed to force compromise and to vent the factional pressures that have torn apart other nations. That is precisely why the President’s actions are so dangerous. They are creating a dominant branch in a tripartite system that allows for unilateral action from a president. Such powers will outlast this president and will likely come back to haunt those Democrats and liberals who are remaining silent (or even applauding) this president’s actions.
As for the Senate, the “Great Compromise” in 1787 fit well in the anti-factional design of the Article One — even though Madison himself was once an advocate for proportional distribution and did not agree that large states would join together against small states. Where other constitutions (as in France) tended to allow factional pressures to explode outwardly, the U.S. Constitution allows them to implode within the legislative branch — funneling these pressures into a process where disparate factional disputes can be converted into majoritarian compromises. This happens through the interactions of houses with different constituencies and interests. The House tends to be the most responsive and desirous of the fastest reaction to national problems. After all, the members are elected every two years and represent smaller constituencies. The Senate has longer term and larger constituencies. It tends to put the breaks on legislative impulse. At the same time, the mix of different interests from large and small states changing the dimension of legislative work in the Senate — adding adding pressure for compromise and reevaluation.
The Great Compromise was forged after various plans from Virginia, New Jersey, and other states were debated. There was considerable support for bicameralism though William Paterson of the New Jersey suggested a single house system (with equal voting for the states). Some like Roger Sherman sought proportional representation in the “lower” house while guaranteeing equal representation in the “upper” house. Virginia delegates like Edmund Randolph and James Madison (as well as Alexander Hamilton) thought it should all be proportional in a bicameral system.
The conference rejected the New Jersey plan which would have created an unicameral legislature with one vote per state. However, the convention deadlocked on the Virginia plan. The issue was referred to committee and out emerged the Great Compromise or what was known as the Connecticut or Sherman compromise. The proposal was put forward by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut to blend the Virginia (large-state) and New Jersey (small-state) proposals. Sherman called for “That the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. branch [house] should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more.”
There is a moderating influence that has come from the additional constituency factor of small versus large states in the Senate. In fairness to Obama, the division does appear more driven by party politics than geographics today. I am not convinced that the large versus small states are a defining political line in today’s politics and Madison may have been right about that point. However, some of the divisions between the parties reflect such geographic elements. Western and Southern politicians tend to be less supportive of environmental issues, national parks and other areas that reflect their interests of their states and citizens. In the end, however, the “disadvantage” faced by Obama is found in both houses, not just the Senate. Moreover, polls show considerable opposition in the areas where Obama is acting unilaterally like immigration.
As for the House, Obama complained that he is also at a disadvantage because “Democrats tend to congregate a little more densely, which puts us at a disadvantage in the House.” That is a perfectly valid call for political action. The Senate comments tend to reflect a growing criticism among some supporters that the Congress is rigged against the Democrats due to the equality of state voting.
Ironically, if there is one provision that could clearly be changed as outmoded it is the electoral college, which has consistently dysfunctional effects on our system. Rather than change the fundamental structure of Congress, that would be a change worthy of presidential advocacy. The changes that have occurred in the Constitution makes this relatively small provision a growing anomaly in our elections. The equality of states in the Senate is neither the cause of the current deadlock (given the role of the House) nor does it excuse the President’s circumvention. It seems to be an obvious post-rationalization for acts of circumvention.
So here is my only request. This is not the first veiled criticism of the Constitution by leaders of both parties. I have long ago stopped hoping that our leaders would maintain a logical and efficient approach to taxes, the environment, education, and other areas. I have come to accept that the executive and legislative branches will continue to waste hundreds of billions and harass trends toward growth. However, I continue to believe that our system can carry the huge costs of both branches and still benefit our citizens. The only limited request is that the two parties with a stranglehold on this nation leave the basic principles of the Constitution alone. That is all. They can destroy the economy, the educational system, and even global stability. However, the Constitutional structure was given to us by the Framers and has served us well. It has certainly served us better than our leaders.
In other words, what is “obvious” Mr. President is that it is not the Constitution that is the problem.
Problem Jim, is that you must be seen when you go to ER. so we all pay for the uninsured.
Getting raped or being a victim of incest is not a choice. Contraception is not 100% effective.* My sister had an xray thru her abdomen for a back issue. No one knew she was 6 wks pregnant. The fetus was horribly deformed, the abortion was necessary for her, and the fetus. I have told this before, my mother had to go before a male judge to get permission to have an abortion because of psychiatric health issues.
Funny how esp for men, it is okay to have sex but the woman should have to pay if it results in an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.
(I most probably have the gene for a devastating fatal illness. I also have birth defects that may or may not be in my genes. G-d forbid I had ever gotten pregnant. To bring a pregnancy to term and inflict this on a child would have been a horrible thing. In your mind the pregnancy should go forward and what happens to the ultimate child that results, you don’t care. Oh and if it could not afford medical care – so what.
* http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/744123
The failure rate of some methods is the same with perfect and with typical use (eg, Implanon® birth control implant), whereas the difference in failure rate between perfect and typical use of other methods is significant (eg, withdrawal). Surgical methods (tubal ligation, male sterilization), IUDs (copper IUD, progestin-releasing IUD), and progesterone implants provide the most effective contraception. The failure rate with these options is less than 1% with both perfect and typical use. Hormonal methods (pill, ring, patch, Depo-Provera®) are very effective when used perfectly (failure rate less than 1%), but with typical use the failure rate is estimated to be 6%-9%. The failure rate with barrier methods is in the 1%-24% range with typical use and in the 2%-20% range with perfect use. Calendar methods are associated with a 25% failure rate with typical use but can be quite effective when used perfectly (0.4%-5% failure rate). Spermicides provide the least effective contraception (28% failure rate with typical use and 18% failure rate with perfect use).
mespo: “Just wondering: if you choose not to have healthcare can the rest of us choose to just let you die if you can’t afford the outrageous prices for-profit hospitals charge uninsured patients?”
Absolutely. Same goes for someone who doesn’t bother to take their education seriously and now can’t find a job. Or a drug addict sucking off the system.It’s called being responsible for your choices. That’s why I wish women would decide not to have abortions since they made a choice to have sex and new the risk. But if they do decide to have one, I shouldn’t have to pay for it or their contraception, which is another personal choice.
Jim22:
My personal feelings on abortion is, I’m against it, but believe the choice should exist just like I believe I should be able to choose to not have health insurance, what light bulbs to use or toilet to buy. The goal is to get women and men to not choose an abortion.”
****************
Just wondering: if you choose not to have healthcare can the rest of us choose to just let you die if you can’t afford the outrageous prices for-profit hospitals charge uninsured patients?
Jim22 – you win the jackpot today. You found Waldo. And Bob, if you do not think the court would have held differently if they had known that Roe was impregnated by her boyfriend, you are not as smart as I think you are. Chances are good they would not have heard the case.
Bob,Esq:
You’re on fire on this thread. Personally, I think the radicalized Republicans are responsible for all manner of disasters both natural and man-made. Probably not from a true causation standpoint, but it just warms my heart to think so. They’re just so easy to dislike.
Bob,
I wasn’t posting that as a position, more of just wondering if it was the secret Paul is holding.
My personal feelings on abortion is, I’m against it, but believe the choice should exist just like I believe I should be able to choose to not have health insurance, what light bulbs to use or toilet to buy. The goal is to get women and men to not choose an abortion.
Jim22,
The disputes regarding facts of the particular case bear no relevance as to the principle espoused in the holding.
Paul: “welcome to my world”
He’s unbelievable.
Paul: “the lie is not hard to find. Seek and ye shall find”.
Paul,
You’re starting to sound like Supak.
Cut the childish evasive crap and answer the question.
Bob, Esq- think of it as Where’s Waldo. It really is not hard to find, just takes about 30 minutes of research, maybe less. Already told you it has nothing to do with Griswold.
Bob, Esq – welcome to my world 😉
Is this the lie or lies?
http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/lies.htm
Scott Supak: What I said: “Most of the blood is on the hands of this kid.” What part of “most” don’t you understand, Bob? It is impossible for Republicans to be “as” culpable as the kid is if I said the kid is mostly culpable.
Of course it’s impossible for Republicans to be as culpable as Elliot Rodger; it’s impossible to blame them at all. That’s why I found what you wrote so intentionally inflammatory and bereft of facts.
Scott Supak: “Most of the blood is on the hands of this kid. And the people who wouldn’t pass the bipartisan background check improvement bill in the US Senate last year. You know, Republicans.”
Bipartisan background check bill defeated by the IRA’s lackeys in the US Senate last year would have made it much harder for people with a history of mental illness to get a piece of machinery that can move metal at deadly speeds.”
(Note how Scott clearly [suggests] that 1) the republicans are as culpable for the murders in California as the mentally ill man who did the shooting and 2) the reason for this was their refusal to pass a bill which Scott claims “would have made it much harder for people with a history of mental illness to get [guns].”)
Prompting my reply:
Me: “Sorry Scott, but the bill put forward by Manchin and Toomey would have merely required background checks for anyone who buys a firearm at a gun show or on the Internet. You seem to be fond of imagining your own facts.”
How does Scott reply?
Scott Supak: “Where did I say that that bill would have stopped that particular murder spree? My point is much larger: closing the gun show and internet loopholes would be a really good idea. Or do you want to wait until someone actually uses that loop hole to kill a bunch of people?”
Truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object.
Note how much Scott’s initial statement agrees with his RECOLLECTIONS of it later.
Such integrity; such intellectual honesty. The man is a truth machine.
Brings a tear to my eye.
Paul: “is there a legal definition for ‘gaslighting’? I am not sure I understand the term used in this circumstance.”
Feynman drove Karen up a wall by prevaricating. Hence the reference to “gaslighting”.
Paul: “although he covers himself nicely and puts his case forward to show himself in the best light, he would not answer Karen’s questions on where the limits of his late term abortion ended. He dodged the issue and continued to dodge it.”
Hence prevaricating.
Paul: “On the numbers of the DC students, they were working on numbers for different groups. That did not make his right, actually his had less validity, considering the bias of the source.”
I didn’t follow that thread.
But I’m still waiting to hear what “lie” you think Roe v Wade is predicated upon.
Bob, Esq. – the lie is not hard to find. Seek and ye shall find.
Supak – well you made me go back and look at my posts and I really can’t see anything that compares to your reference of male genitalia used in various ways. I suppose you will just deny your knowledge of where the slang “tea bagger” came from now that you’ve been called out on it.
So what have I written that is so offensive?
You’re mistaken again. Cato was the source for the OTHER part of the equation – how much DC spends per student. They assert that DC spends $30,000 per student . Right wing media latched onto that and used that same $30,000 figure all over the web. Traditional news sources put the cost per student at almost $19,000 – the highest in the nation.
Do doubt you understand how it is critical to have the correct school population. 47,000 is nowhere close to an accurate school population and $30,000 per student is also quite wrong.
There is nothing traditional about CNN, the Washington Post or the DC Mayor.
Paul S
Well I guess we are left with your assertion – the guy who did not participate in the exchange, does no research, and is frequently mistaken, and never favored Bob Esq with a response. Or we can accept my assertion – the person who presented three sources to substantiate my claim of 73,000 students – none of which were the NEA.
I gave Bob, Esq a response, it is just one he does not appreciate. And three wrong sources (you admitted they used the same source) does not a right source make. And what does the NEA have to do with anything?
Jim 22, who’s earlier comments were so uncivil that I just ignored them, now is upset that I used the term “tea bagger” for someone who dangles tea bags off their tricorn hats.
Touchy, touchy.
You want to call me a libtard, you go right ahead, buddy.
Bob, Esq:
“Note how Scott clearly states that 1) the republicans are as culpable for the murders in California as the mentally ill man who did the shooting ”
What I said: “Most of the blood is on the hands of this kid.”
What part of “most” don’t you understand, Bob? It is impossible for Republicans to be “as” culpable as the kid is if I said the kid is mostly culpable.
Further, there is a LOT OF BLOOD. This kid is just one kid. We can take basic, simple, smart, constitutional things we can do to stop all the OTHER blood. Closing the internet and gun show loopholes is just one of those things.
My favorite, that no one talks about, is requiring all states to have gun safety programs for gun buyers. Anyone operating machinery that can propel metal to deadly speeds should have to prove their proficiency with it.
“2) the reason for this was their refusal to pass a bill which Scott claims “would have made it much harder for people with a history of mental illness to get [guns].)”
The reason for the blood being MOSTLY on the kids hands is because he’s the guy who pulled the trigger. Since I did not “clearly state” that Republicans are as culpable as the kid did, then it does not follow that what I was saying in (2) is not directly attributable to this particular shooting spree.
But if you want me to find one that it is, there are literally thousands for me to choose from.
Now, if you want to pull your head out of this one kid’s mind for a second and look at the fact that thousands die every year who could be saved by simple gun control improvements, please continue.
Paul S
You are mistaken – again.
I refer only to the numbers of children in the DC schools. My source for that number was Washington Post, CNN, and the DC mayor. That number is over 73,000 students. Karen insisted it was 47,000. If you care to do your own research (ha!) look at the number of kids in DC charter schools. The number is 35,000 and is found easily. 35,000 in charter schools and only 12,000 in traditional public schools? Are you ready to believe that? Karen found her number on a Census Table that I was unable to locate. I asked for her help. She blew me off. Yet another reason to show restraint when ‘working’ with Karen.
Karen gave you the Census graph which you seemed to have ignored.
Supak – “Do you have any proof for this assertion? If so, my first instinct would be that the IRS was doing it’s job and only granting 501c3 status for those who qualify for it. If Tea baggers can’t get their act together and fill out the forms right, that’s there problem.”
Such maturity. You really show yourself as a first rate hack. I guess I will resort to use of Libtards whenever I refer to Liberal Idiots for now on.