Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I like Frum, a real conservative who doesn't bow before false party icons.
This is one of those Spencerian sentences that has no discernable meaning but sounds like it does.
He's also Canadian and I like Canada.
We are Americans. Do you like the U.S.A.? Perhaps you would prefer a Canadian parliamentary system and a Canadian constitution?
Like I said in the other thread, take it to the courts and let's decide once and for all what the rules are going to be.
-spence
|
But what if no one takes it to the courts? The fact that it's being mentioned must make the SCOTUS a bit nervous. There is no provision under the judicial power granted to it in the Constitution which gives the Court standing here. Its power extends to cases of law and equity involving a list of items in which Congress's determination on recess is not mentioned nor implied. Further, Article 1, section 7 states "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United Sates . . ." clearly giving Congress the power to decide for itself on questions of adjournment. It can decide for itself when it is in recess.
The power of the Federal Government has been growing out of proportion to that which it was given in the Constitution, and, along with that federal expansion, the power of the POTUS has been growing even more. It was intended by the Founders that Congress, especially the House of Representatives, would be the strongest arm of federal power, with the judicial being the weakest. Strong Presidents have been able through "bully pulpit" demagoguery to force their will on a weakening Congress and thus becoming the strongest branch of government--almost to the point of being responsible for, and looked to for, solving most of the nation's problems, even to defining what the problems are. The Court, through the pretense of "interpretation," has given itself an even more powerful mode of legislation than was granted to Congress. It doesn't have to get elected. Only five judges are required to pass it's mandates. The Congress has become the step-child fighting for its rightful place.
So now we have a President who has taken one more of Congress's prerogatives, and the proposed solution is to let the Court step in and take a piece as well? Do we really want the rise of a monarchic type executive and a judiciary that legislates by opinion rather than merely adjudicates according to law to further weaken the Peoples elected representatives? And all in order to avoid contentions? I say, in the great tradition of American politics, let them sqauble. Let them fight, and delay, and obfuscate, and make it EXTREMELY difficult to pass legislation after legislation (was it 40,000 bills that were passed last year?), and agency after agency. The Federal Government is getting farther and farther away from us, and it is creating a larger and larger unelected bureaucracy which administers more and more portions of our lives, finances, businesses, health . . . It was CLEARLY not meant to be so.
But the British and their Canadian fellow travelers, according to some here, know better. It's like we're about to fight the Revolution all over again. The Tories versus the Rebels. We've had our tea party, now . . . in the original revolution the Tories and the King had the upper hand, but dogged perseverence and stupid British military decisions allowed the Rebels victory . . . and a new republic with a unique system of government was born . . . a system that granted and required individual effort, responsibility, and a virtuous faithfulness to its declared values and to a constant defense of its Constitution. How far we have departed from those requirements, is how far we are from that republic. The Tories would be happy.