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.
SR: “Once the government exercises power over that domain, once it exercises power over those inalienable rights, then the compact is dissolved; because that’s tyranny per se.
Bob, Esq:
“This completely ignores the social compact problem I mentioned earlier. The existence of our social compact, i.e. that which the constitution is predicated upon, necessitates the respect for the inalienable right of self ownership and all the attendant duties of virtue found therein. Once the government exercises power over that domain, once it exercises power over hose inalienable rights, then compact is dissolved; because that’s tyranny per se.”
Damn straight.
But according to Schulte, this inalienable right of self ownership is a lie.
As a practical matter, bans and personhood are much too absolute.
If you think human life begins at conception, then you cannot allow any abortion. As soon as you allow any exceptions, you have said “well, it’s OK to kill some people.”
Which, of course, they already do when it comes to the death penalty and collateral damage in war.
Please point out the ‘inalienable right to self-ownership’ in the Constitution.
Annie:
” I’m on board with prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks. ”
You really shouldn’t be. It leads to torture:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/10/149878/nebraska-abortion-law-tragic/
10 days she was tortured by the people who support 20 week bans.
You have a very broad definition of torture which I do not think is supported by many others.
then the compact is dissolved.
Annie: “Once the fetus is of a viable age it should not be aborted, my opinion only.”
Actually, that’s a general statement of the law(s).
Annie: “I don’t defend the rights of a woman to get an abortion after 21 weeks.”
But the right must be maintained until the sun burns out or the U.S. ceases to exist; whichever comes first.
Some of my conservative friends will attempt to argue that as medical technology advances, the time till viability will decrease. Perhaps in the next century they will argue that modern medical technology has made all fetuses viable and therefore abortion must be illegal.
This completely ignores the social compact problem I mentioned earlier. The existence of our social compact, i.e. that which the constitution is predicated upon, necessitates the respect for the inalienable right of self ownership and all the attendant duties of virtue found therein. Once the government exercises power over that domain, once it exercises power over hose inalienable rights, then compact is dissolved; because that’s tyranny per se.
Bob, Esq.:
“Feynman, The Rush Limbaugh comparison was mine.”
So? Feynman was simply pointing out to Schulte that by your definition of inflammatory rhetoric, Schulte was engaging in it.
“The simple use of inflammatory rhetoric does not make one a fabulist.”
Is it inflammatory to tell the truth that denying medicinal marijuana to patients who desperately need it leads to suffering?
Is causing suffering the definition of torture?
Do you support torture?
* I’m not here ( in this abortion discussion) for arguing Roe v. Wade* or perhaps I should’ve said TO argue Roe v. Wade.
Schulte:
Actually my statement about Hillary was both accurate and understated.
What, precisely, makes Hillary “evil incarnate” ?
“Had to read the piece to get to the bottom to find that it was ‘half-true’ which is more generous than I would have given it. Unsupportable is what I would have said.”
And you would be wrong. I would argue the 50,000 number is the better one, but the number is certainly huge.
Just out of curiosity, how many would you say? None?
Jim22:
“Using what I could quickly find, in 2011 it’s estimated there were 1.06M abortions. 25k is only 2.35%. Is that too many from rape/incest? absolutely. But the numbers suggest that most abortions are used as a form of birth control.”
A personhood amendment doesn’t care if the “person” was created from rape. It would force women to give birth to rape babies. Maybe you’re OK with forcing 25,000 women a year to give birth to rape babies (and about 30 states allow rapists to file for parental rights) but to me that’s the utmost in big government authoritarianism.
And, if you want to stop the use of abortion as birth control, shouldn’t you be supporting the people who want to make birth control more available, and to teach about using it to kids, instead of telling them abstinence is the only way?
“As for your diatribe on reps bad, dems good. I find it all quit boring. You spin history however it makes you feel better. All I know is the world is a worse place than it used to be and it isn’t due to a lack of more govt.”
You are proposing more government when you get the government between women and their doctors.
And if you’re worried about why the world isn’t such a great place, you can start with GW Bush, who lied us into a $2 trillion war that killed tens of thousands (if not more) people, while he put trickle down economics on steroids and shrank the balls of the world economy down to a size where it almost drowned in a bathtub.
Feynman,
The Rush Limbaugh comparison was mine.
The simple use of inflammatory rhetoric does not make one a fabulist.
Bob, I didn’t say a 27 week old fetus wasn’t viable. I was expressing my own view on abortion. I’m on board with prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks. It’s not exactly a mainline liberal view but, it’s been my own personal view for sometime now. With the advent of very early pregnancy testing and IF abortion were to become less difficult to get, especially in certain conservative states,all women seeking abortion could get one before the 21st week. Later abortion in the incidence of rape, my thoughts are that induction of labor and an early birth would be the way to go. If the baby survives, it’s given medical care. Babies of 21 weeks have survived. It would cost the tax payers some money but the life of the baby would be spared, so it should be worth it to prolife folks. No grousing. Once the fetus is of a viable age it should not be aborted, my opinion only. I don’t defend the rights of a woman to get an abortion after 21 weeks. The trend by conservatives to attempt to bestow personhood on a zygote is an absolutist notion that shouldn’t be entertained seriously, because women have been seeking abortions for a long time and before abortion, infanticide occurred when a woman had a baby of the wrong sex, or one too many, or because of a deformity. Or other crazy reasons.
I’m not for arguing Roe v. Wade, nor even defending it as it stands now. I think with the technological advances tjat jave occured, we need to take another look at babies born alive after abortion and legally limit the time in which one can be performed. If a baby has a life threatening condition and won’t live even hours or days after birth, later abortions should still be legal. In the case of a woman’s life, early induction or C section, as is done now in cases of preeclamtic women. The baby survives.
Schulte:
“So the statement that there are 25000 pregnancies by rape and incest a year is ‘half-true’ even by your account.”
It’s rated half true because Politifact thinks it could be a bit higher, or a bit lower. Did you read the piece?
There is no doubt that thousands of women get pregnant from rape every year. Despite what your Republican friends might have told you, the female body does NOT have a way of “shutting that whole thing down.”
Had to read the piece to get to the bottom to find that it was ‘half-true’ which is more generous than I would have given it. Unsupportable is what I would have said.
Me – “I would also think that biology would suggest that at conception, a human cell is created and that it is unique and not just some wart growing inside of her.”
You- “You might like to think that, but you’d be wrong. And if we pass a personhood amendment, there’d be no exceptions.”
Really? So you are telling me that if I took a zygote to a biologist or someone in the medical world they one, wouldn’t be able to tell me that it was a human cell and two wouldn’t be able to tell the difference from another zygote. I am surprised.
You – “For example, you know about 25,000 American women get pregnant from rape or incest each year?”
Using what I could quickly find, in 2011 it’s estimated there were 1.06M abortions. 25k is only 2.35%. Is that too many from rape/incest? absolutely. But the numbers suggest that most abortions are used as a form of birth control.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
From above site.
WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
In 2010, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).
Women living with a partner to whom they are not married account for 25% of abortions but only about 10% of women in the population (NAF).
In 2010, 55.6% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.7% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 7.7% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).
Among women who obtained abortions in 2010, 40.3% had no prior live births; 45.9% had one or two prior live births, and 13.8% had three or more prior live births (CDC).
Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 32.9% of all abortions in 2010; women between 25-29 obtained 24.5% (CDC).
Women in their 20’s have the highest abortion rates. In 2010, women aged 20-24 had 27.4 abortions for every one thousand 20-24 year-old women. Women aged 25-29 had 20.4 abortions for every one thousand 25-29 year-old women (CDC).
51% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions, and teenagers obtain 18% (AGI).
In 2010, adolescents under 15 years obtained .05% of all abortions, but had the highest abortion ratio, 851 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).
Black women were 3.7 times more likely to have an abortion in 2010 than non-Hispanic white women (CDC).
The abortion rate of non-metropolitan women is about half that of women who live in metropolitan counties (NAF).
The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).
37% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 28% identify themselves as Catholic (AGI).
At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion (AGI).
WHY ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?
On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).
One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).
As for your diatribe on reps bad, dems good. I find it all quit boring. You spin history however it makes you feel better. All I know is the world is a worse place than it used to be and it isn’t due to a lack of more govt.
Annie – So babies born don’t rely on adult humans?
Paul S says:
‘No one is less evil than Hillary. Does not make any difference who runs. A vote for Hillary is a vote for evil incarnate.”
_________________________________________________
That’s inflammatory. That’s very Rush-like.
Actually my statement about Hillary was both accurate and understated.
No one less evil then Hillary? Really. You think Cheney and Bush lying us into a war and causing the loss of thousands of lives and the ruination of many, many others is not evil? (Just as one quick but no one only example) Give us some proof of why Sec’t Clinton is so evil? I mean other then posting diatribes from the right like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Fox.
Comments being eaten…
Well, Schulte, the 25,000 number isn’t copied and pasted from Wikipedia without citing it… And it’ probably an underestimate depending on who’s study you believe.
http://bit.ly/1hFWXn6
And your BS about Hillary is just funny. She would be less of a hawk than just about any Republican, and too bad you can’t ask the half a million dead people in Iraq about evil incarnate.
Let the feds torture…
That’s right, Schulte. I have many friends who suffer from diseases that can be helped by marijuana in ways that no other drugs can be. People in agonizing pain who can’t take opiates or other pain medication, for example, depend on marijuana for relief.
When Republicans vote to let the Federal Government interfere with that treatment, it has led to cases, and there were many, especially during the Bush administration and the earlier years of the Obama administration, where these patients were arrested. This leads to them suffering without their medicine. It leads to extreme pain, slower recovery from treatments for cancer, more pain for AIDS patients, and MS patients (for whom the drug is especially effective).
Obama has been quite good on this issue compared to past presidents, and, as I showed, only 9% of Democrats voted to torture these people.
But it’s torture. And it’s not inflammatory to call it what it is.
Comments being eaten…
Well, Schulte, the 25,000 number isn’t copied and pasted from Wikipedia without citing it… And it’ probably an underestimate depending on who’s study you believe.
http://bit.ly/1hFWXn6
And your BS about Hillary is just funny. She would be less of a hawk than just about any Republican, and too bad you can’t ask the half a million dead people in Iraq about evil incarnate.
“Let the feds torture…”
That’s right, Schulte. I have many friends who suffer from diseases that can be helped by marijuana in ways that no other drugs can be. People in agonizing pain who can’t take opiates or other pain medication, for example, depend on marijuana for relief.
When Republicans vote to let the Federal Government interfere with that treatment, it has led to cases, and there were many, especially during the Bush administration and the earlier years of the Obama administration, where these patients were arrested. This leads to them suffering without their medicine. It leads to extreme pain, slower recovery from treatments for cancer, more pain for AIDS patients, and MS patients (for whom the drug is especially effective).
Obama has been quite good on this issue compared to past presidents, and, as I showed, only 9% of Democrats voted to torture these people.
But it’s torture. And it’s not inflammatory to call it what it is.
Comments being eaten.
Comments being eaten…
Well, Schulte, the 25,000 number isn’t copied and pasted from Wikipedia without citing it… And it’ probably an underestimate depending on who’s study you believe.
http://bit.ly/1hFWXn6
And your BS about Hillary is just funny. She would be less of a hawk than any Republican save Rand Paul, who doesn’t have a chance at the nomination, and too bad you can’t ask the half a million dead people in Iraq about evil incarnate.
Well, it’s not copied and pasted from Wikipedia without citing it… And it’ probably an underestimate depending on who’s study you believe.
http://bit.ly/1hFWXn6
The lowest number was in the 3000s.
Schulte:
“Where are you getting that 25000 a year pregnant by rape or incest?”
Well, it’s not copied and pasted without reference from Wikipedia. And it could be an underestimate, depending on who’s study you believe.
http://bit.ly/1hFWXn6
So the statement that there are 25000 pregnancies by rape and incest a year is ‘half-true’ even by your account.