By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
I think it was Winston Churchill who reminded us that the “supreme virtue” of government is action. In fact, the greatest of modern British prime ministers, who often marked his staff memoranda in red with the words “Action This Day,” counseled that ” I never worry about action, but only inaction.” Action in recognizing problems. Action in mobilizing support and action in addressing the causes of human suffering and improving the lives of those over whom you have power and authority.
On this side of the Atlantic, the framers understood this seemingly obvious facet of government. Jefferson wrote, “The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people.” Protecting individual rights and promoting the security and happiness of those individuals is the essential business of government. Not “either-or” but both.
“We the People” were formed into a “more perfect Union” for some precise purposes: “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” That’s not a request; that’s a duty. One from which all those sub-duties known as the laws of the Constitution flow. And those duties — all of them — flow directly down from the People to their servants in the three branches.
While he full well explains the steps to remedying the current state of affairs, he erroneously, in my judgment, omits the implied duty that runs throughout the separation of powers doctrine — the concomitant duty of those branches even as they assert their prerogatives to do something with that power. It is not enough to simply re-establish the balance of power. That power has to be exercised in furtherance of agreed-to national goals. A perfectly balanced system that accomplishes nothing is every bit as much a failed government as one that coerces its people. And a reestablishment of a pristine version of separation of powers is as short-lived as the mayfly if the power vacuum caused by inaction remains. It is as sure a historical axiom as we have, that power will always expand to fill a vacuum. That is precisely what we have today even as Congress, led by Speaker John Boehner seeks to sue the President of the United States to rein in what he considers to be an administration run amok doing things.
And what prompted Boehner’s wrath? Well, the President frustrated by the Congress’ obstinacy to do anything but tease on immigration reform for purely political reasons has vowed to do all he can by executive order to address this critical problem most recently manifested by thousands of vulnerable kids fleeing war and poverty and streaming across the US-Mexican border.
Boehner has written an opinion piece for CNN explaining the reasons for his decision to seek legislation authorizing the right to sue the President. After reminding us that everyone in government swears an oath to that featured document encased in glass at the National Archives, Boehner explains:
But too often over the past five years, the President has circumvented the American people and their elected representatives through executive action, changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from enforcing statutes he is sworn to uphold — at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the American people to stop him.
Daring the American people to stop him? We had that chance twice – as recently as 2012. Obama won the popular vote then by 5 million voters and the electoral college vote by 126. Was the problem paramount in the public’s collective mind to be solved by the election an administration on the loose or a society desperately seeking one person who would do something about the problems that beset them? Problems which, by the way, most fair minded folks would agree did not derive with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It’s a time-tested feature of the American Presidency that holders of the office are judged by what they do for people and not how they do it. Lincoln is remembered in the consciousness of the public for ending the Civil War not suspending habeas corpus. FDR is lionized for the New Deal and his leadership against fascism not the court-packing plan. And even ol’ unpopular ‘W” himself has received a popularity renaissance of sorts for his efforts to combat terrorism with hardly a mention of the dubious methods he employed. Why would the public in the last two elections be looking for anything different? Give us someone who can bring about positive change in Washington and the society it oversees was the order from the populace.
Perhaps the country felt that way because the Congress they sent off to Washington time after time has totally abdicated its responsibilities to govern or even make the pretense of governing. It’s as if that Republican dominated or stymied body has taken Grover Norquist’s pledge to heart — with an added bonus: No new taxes, of course, and we’ll reduce the size of government so we really can just strangle it in the bathroom. Need some proof? Let’s take a history lesson.
In 1948, Harry Truman derided the 80th Congress the “Do-Nothing Congress.” Dominated by Republicans, the body was pro-business, anti-Fair Deal, and determined to do nothing that would aid the Democratic Party. It passed just 906 public laws even as the nation was coming out from under the burden of a world war and had to deal with the returning veterans and a threat from the Soviet Union. The public took their wrath out in the election of 1948 and sent 82 Republican lawmakers home.
Fast forward to today and the explosion of problems never even envisioned by the 80th Congress like immigration reform and the terrorist threat. How has the body partially overseen by public servant and sworn constitutionalist John Boehner done in recognizing and addressing the nation’s many problems? USA Today answers the question in an op/ed:
Having enacted 104 laws since early 2013, the 113th Congress is on track to break the previous record low of 283, set in 2011-12 by the 112th Congress. And with last fall’s pointless government shutdown, the current Congress reached a level of dysfunction that the 112th never attained.
To call the 113th Congress bad is like calling water wet. It is harming the economy in the short term while running from serious long-term problems. Appropriately, its approval ratings are stuck in the teens, with occasion dips into single digits.
283 is a far cry from 906 and the prospects look very good for a mid-term election that will bring us even less legislation and more bickering. Viva la separation of powers and its modern-day cousin, gridlock!
The historic problem is what do you do when you’re facing very real international and domestic problems with an indispensable partner who fails –and even refuses –to act? For example, how do you address the problems of thousands of unaccompanied and exploitable kids crossing the border? If you’re Congress, you do nothing and blast someone who does. If you’re the President you push the buttons you have. Obama has vowed to ” [begin] a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress.” These measures would take the form of increased enforcement of the borders and extend to possibly “giving work permits and protection from deportation to millions of immigrants now in the country’, according to the New York Times.
Boehner’s response was predictable and apoplectic, “In our conversation last week, I told the president what I have been telling him for months: the American people and their elected officials don’t trust him to enforce the law as written. Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue… It is sad and disappointing that – faced with this challenge – President Obama won’t work with us, but is instead intent on going it alone with executive orders that can’t and won’t fix these problems. ”
Work with us? In February, Boehner himself was privately trumpeting a landmark immigration bill that would address many of the problems both parties see as resolvable. That was in response to some very public polling showing Republicans being battered among Hispanic voters. But conservatives in his own party nixed the plan threatening to pull support for his speakership if he moved forward to introduce the legislation. The pretense for the reversal was Republican insistence that Obama precipitated the crisis by scaling back on deportation for younger undocumented aliens and that therefore he couldn’t be trusted to faithfully enforce the immigration laws. That doesn’t explain why Republicans backed off legislation that would address the problem and take effect after Obama’s term ends. As Senator Charles Schumer reiterated on the Senate floor, “If Republicans can’t agree to pass a bill that goes into effect after the president’s term, then we know that ‘mistrust of the president’ is nothing but a straw man.”
So Obama acts alone. Constitutional? We’ll see, but, the structural problem remains. Can the voters fix it? Maybe, they did in 1948, but the country was less polarized along ideological lines. A recipe for disaster? Probably and one not likely to be fixed no matter how the conservative dominated Supreme Court rules. And action to address the nation’s woes? Well, that seems to be neither the concern of the court, nor the Congress, and, for well-articulated doctrinal reasons, perhaps not even the President’s. So who is charged with performing the duties of the Constitution? Perhaps it’s just us.
And what would Jefferson say about the nation he founded and its seeming inability to get out of its own way? “Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you,” comes the judgment from our third president. Which prompts me to ask: What, my dear Sage of Monticello, does our inaction say?
What do you think?
Source: CNN and throughout
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
By the way and for better or worse, the views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays of art are solely the author’s decision and responsibility. No infringement of intellectual property rights is intended and will be remedied upon notice from the owner. Fair use is however asserted for such inclusions of quotes, excerpts, photos, art, and the like.
Paid_Attention wrote “u6 is the real marker of unemployment, and 5% is the magic number?”
I am certainly not going to accept some no-name, biased website as the ultimate source of truth, not to mention that websites like that often include malware. But here’s the BLS’ definition of U6 to show you that it is indeed the best indicator: “Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.”
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Saucy,
over 400 filibusters. Please compare the numbers. There is a lot of difference when the Republicans even vote against their own sponsored bills.
Mespo,
All of the above!
rafflaw wrote “The Republican definition of compromise is agree with everything we want”
I do not dispute that, but I still maintain that the damage caused by previous political correctness is the ultimate cause. I did not notice any Democrats decrying the lynching of Brendan Eich.
The Tea Party believes it has a monopoly on the truth, but so do liberals. Obama’s use of an executive order to give special rights to LGBT contractors proved that he believes he is a king, able to give favors to his friends.
“If the Dems are guilty of failing to compromise”
Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, and McConnell all blocked many bills from coming to the floor when they were in the majority. There is little difference between them.
TheSaucyMugwump: u6 is the real marker of unemployment, and 5% is the magic number? Hmmm:
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp?fromYear=1994&toYear=2014
rafflaw:
What do you make of the all-encompassing opposition to everything Obama? Political? Racial animus? Or just plain obstinacy?
nick:
Thanks, nick. We’ll find out who’s right later.
Peggy:
I have. There is an excellent counter-point to Mr. Will written by Ruth Marcus also from the Washington Post I recommend it for some perspective on modern presidents and what they do:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-presidential-lawlessness-from-obama-hardly/2014/02/04/10cb326a-8dc9-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html
Dear Mark Esposito, Did you know George Will refers to David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University who have studied case law and believe Congress can establish “standing” if it can be obtained “conditional on four things”. I refer you to George Will’s opinion in the Washington Post: George Will: ” Stoping a lawless president”,on June 20.
Peggy Dufek, Team Captain for the Convention of States in TN
Saucy,
The Republican definition of compromise is agree with everything we want. If the Dems are guilty of failing to compromise, why have the Republicans filibustered over 400 times?
mespo, Well researched and written post. Too bad you’re wrong.
“I think it was Winston Churchill who reminded us that the “supreme virtue” of government is action.” – Mark E
We are still suffering from some of the actions of Winston (The Universal Smedley – 2).
Nevertheless, I agree with the basic premise that Mark is making.
The wrong-wing of the opposition party is fundamentally obstructionist, stonewalling in bad faith, and in general they are a nuisance.
Thus, as Mark suggests, they are violating their duty and their oath.
Excellent article Mark. It is interesting that the very same people who publicly vowed to block everything the Obama Administration attempts to do is crying foul when Obama suggests he has some powers of his own. As long as he uses the Executive orders and enforcement powers correctly, I am all for him to act to help the country. Boehner will not act until and unless the Koch Brothers and his other corporate sponsors say it is ok to do so. Follow the money to find the real cause of Congressional inaction.
Boehner’s only real option is the impeachment process as suggested by Scalia in a somewhat recent Supreme Court case. The name escapes me at the moment.
The intent was never to govern. The plan was to weaken government — by bathtub drowning if you believe Grover Norquist — to the point it could be replaced with a theocratic oligarchy. That has always been the plan. America came within 5 million votes of it in 2012. White Horse Romney is mulling 3.0. America already has the oligarchy part, making it exceedingly vulnerable to religious charismatics from within.
None of the current posers for candidates is going to willingly cede back the awful powers granted to the President by Congress, which must repeal the Patriot Act and the authorization of forces, and stamp out any whiff of this “unitary executive” nonsense.
Part of the problem is while the complaints and posts and media keep covering the president’;s use of these executive actions and often commentinig along with them that it is out of bounds Boehner seems to get a free pass, as does the republican and the right.
They are against things for which they were for until it carries the president’s name, such as Romneycare was fine but name it Obamacare, oh no! that stinks how horrid. No jobs bills from them, obstructionism from the word go, wo which they admitted that was the goal they set from the night of the first iunauguration.
Absent the president acting almost nothing is getting done by one of the worst “do nothing congresses” from my understanding, on record.
The dems have to take some of the blame by not even putting up a contender against Boehner so he had clear sailing to the speakership.
(This does ot mean I endorse all of what the president has done but he has to act when the other side refuses to even make an effort to do the job for which they were elected, which means working for the country and the people, not just putting up fronts for their party.
mespo727272 wrote “I think it was Winston Churchill who reminded us that the ‘supreme virtue’ of government is action”
Do be careful about quoting Churchill. He may have been the best orator the English-speaking world has ever brought forth, but his micromanagement drove everyone nuts. During WWII he badged his generals to invade Europe long before they were ready. Ed Cray, George Marshall’s biographer, noted that he was annoyed at Churchill’s constant change of direction.
mespo727272 wrote “The historic problem is what do you do when you’re facing very real international”
Obama’s actions concerning Syria proved that he is incompetent. Declaring that a “red line” exists and then not acting proved that he has no clue regarding international affairs. Words have consequences.
mespo727272 quoted the great Obama “giving work permits and protection from deportation to millions of immigrants now in the country”
Look at the most accurate indicator of unemployment, U6. It stands at 12.1%. When that figure drops below 5%, we can discuss allowing more people into the country.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
mespo727272 wrote “the structural problem remains”
I would describe it as a failure to compromise. At the risk of sounding like a 5-year-old, liberals started it by calling everyone who disagreed with them “racists,” “Islamophobes,” and/or “homophobes.” Conservatives got tired of being called names and started playing the same game. And now nothing gets done. Obama has spent most of his political capital on giving special rights to LGBTs when he should have been concentrating on jobs and other things that benefit the majority of Americans.
The list of empty suits in Washington is long and illustrious: Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell, Paul, and many more. The only solution is to eliminate both Republican and Democratic parties, but given that they have the keys to the kingdom, don’t hold your breath.
mespo – considering the Obama administrations track record with the SC this year, Boehner has a decent chance of winning his suit. Presidents have been sued before with some wins and some losses. It is all of the process.
FDR is only lionized by the left for the New Deal and Lincoln did not end the Civil War, generals like Grant, Sherman and Sheridan did that. And Jefferson violated his own anti-expansionist views by buying the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson also advocated periodic revolution to set things right.
Being from the Tea Party I don’t like Boehner even though I am from Ohio. But I also think the Obama is acting unconstitutional and that Reid in the Senate helps him by blocking legislation. As the founders knew all legislation is not good and the checks and balances were meant to stop fiddling with the principles set set forth. The Federal government was for mutual protection and it was for the several states to legislate civil society not the US congress. Therefore the Bill of Rights which was the first order of business of the first congress which was the promise of the new ‘federal’ government that they would not interfere with the citizens daily lives.
Boehner and his Republican fanatics have worked hard to create this “Constituional” crisis. They have announced their intention to make sure Obama gets nothing done and they have been pretty successful and destructive. After 8 years of the GWB disaster–a terrorist attack on NYC, a war on Afganistant that allowed the Saudis to allude responsibility; a war in Iraq that was based in lies and resulted in the significant loss of life but to Cheney’s joy resulted in billions for Halliburton; a destroyed economy and bailouts with no strings (yes, that was Bush) and a raft of Executive orders NOW the Republicans don’t like executive orders or a president that goes out on his own. Give me a break. Obama has made one big mistake he has given in too often to crazy. You cannot negotiate with crazy.
Has Obama made mistakes? Absolutely. So many that I am deeply disappointed and frustrated but the GOP has done nothing but reward it’s big money doners, carp about any effort to help real humans that live in this country and now their right wind SUPREME CORPORATE COURT has begun to establish classes of citizens MOST OF THEM “corporations” who have special privileges and rights. HL is just another example but it may prove to be the most damaging. In full knowledge of what happens when religion trumps reason–the ME is very clear evidence– SCOTUS has decided that corporations can have relgious sensibilities and that they and their owners should be exempted from following generally applicable laws. Look upon what the GOP has wrought. I do and I say: it is not good. Darkness is falling.
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "THE CLINGERS".