I'm not sure how you can read about Newt Gingrich's proposal to arrest judges who issue rulings he disagrees with without feeling a deep, shivering terror at the state of American democracy.
What's most amazing is that, even after saying stuff like this, we'll still be treated to beltway claptrap about how Newt is the "thinker" of the Republican field; that he's "visionary" and that at least he "has ideas". How those "ideas" deviate from Michele Bachmann's or, for that matter, Hugo Chavez is entirely unclear. But being a raging lunatic has never stopped anyone from seizing momentum in a GOP primary.
Showing posts with label Checks and Balances. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Checks and Balances. Show all posts
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
How a Bill Becomes a Law
It's been awhile since I took high school civics, but I think I recall the basics: The House and the Senate both have to pass it, and then the President signs it. There are some wrinkles involving vetoes and conference negotiations and whatnot, but the basics aren't too difficult.
Unless, apparently, you're the GOP Majority Leader in the House. Then a bill becomes a law solely upon action by the House, regardless of whether the Senate and President like it or not:
In other basic checks-and-balances news, the Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General says that the state's new anti-union law is "absolutely" still in effect despite a state judge's restraining order blocking the law from going into effect (a temporary measure while the judge determines whether the passage of the law violated the state's open meetings requirement).
Unless, apparently, you're the GOP Majority Leader in the House. Then a bill becomes a law solely upon action by the House, regardless of whether the Senate and President like it or not:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said at a press conference that Republicans would consider the Government Shutdown Prevention Act on Friday. The bill would make H.R. 1 law if the Senate fails to pass a measure “before April 6” to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. H.R. 1, which passed the House but has gone nowhere in the Senate, would fund the government through the end of September and seeks to cut $61 billion in spending.
Despite GOP claims to the contrary, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act would not become law unless the Senate also approves it and the president signs it into law, neither of which is expected to occur.
In other basic checks-and-balances news, the Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General says that the state's new anti-union law is "absolutely" still in effect despite a state judge's restraining order blocking the law from going into effect (a temporary measure while the judge determines whether the passage of the law violated the state's open meetings requirement).
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Blank Check
Publius on the unified theory of why the Bush administration is hideous:
I'll give the GOP credit for instilling me with a healthy respect for limiting government (albeit they've shown that I should focus on limitations less of the "minimum wage sucks" form than the "torture = illegal" issue). But as Publius notes, the problems here aren't necessarily breaking or evading rule of law. Some of what the Bush administration has done is probably legal, but hideously inadvisable. For example, I guess I give the administration a little credit for (belatedly) getting Congress to change the law regarding Habeas. It's better than the old position, which was that President Bush could ignore Habeas simply because he wanted to. But it's still a bad thing insofar as it obliterates a crucial check on government power that prevents oppression.
America has a peculiar internal history, one that is deeply tied to our tradition of being a liberal, democratic state. In its purist manifestations, this story serves our nation well as a symbol of our highest aspirations. But we must take care not to be seduced by our own idealized history. If there is one thing Americans remember, it is that there is nothing intrinsic to being "American" that prevents our government from becoming a tool of oppression and illiberalism. If we strip away the procedures and norms that demand open government and democratic accountability, we will not be saved from authoritarianism simply because the state flies red, white, and blue. Many people seem willing to sanction near-any assertion of power by the Executive Branch, primarily because they cannot even imagine that this state, our state, could succumb to the totalitarian temptation that has cursed so many people around the world. This type of thinking will do us (and the democratic project) in.
If my critique of the Bush administration could be expressed in a single sentence, it would be this -- they ignore and attack restraints on their power. This is the foundational conceptual thread that binds together so many of the scandals and controversies we've seen over the past few years. International law constraining your actions? Ignore it. War crimes statute limiting your interrogation methods? Ignore it (then delete it). Don’t like part of a congressionally-enacted statute? Issue a signing statement and ignore it. Pesky FISA cramping your style? Declare it unconstitutional. Geneva Convention got you down? Call it quaint. Is your habeas flaring up again? Delete it. Having problems with a special prosecutor? Lie to him. Are certain Democrats political threats? Prosecute them, or suppress their political base through fraud investigations or through not enforcing the Voting Rights Act. And if U.S. Attorneys refuse to go along? Fire them.
I could go on, but you get the point. And many similar critiques could be leveled against the Republican Party more generally on everything from Bush v. Gore, to the Texas redistricting, to the Medicare Rx bill vote, to the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal, to the nuclear option, etc.
I'll give the GOP credit for instilling me with a healthy respect for limiting government (albeit they've shown that I should focus on limitations less of the "minimum wage sucks" form than the "torture = illegal" issue). But as Publius notes, the problems here aren't necessarily breaking or evading rule of law. Some of what the Bush administration has done is probably legal, but hideously inadvisable. For example, I guess I give the administration a little credit for (belatedly) getting Congress to change the law regarding Habeas. It's better than the old position, which was that President Bush could ignore Habeas simply because he wanted to. But it's still a bad thing insofar as it obliterates a crucial check on government power that prevents oppression.
America has a peculiar internal history, one that is deeply tied to our tradition of being a liberal, democratic state. In its purist manifestations, this story serves our nation well as a symbol of our highest aspirations. But we must take care not to be seduced by our own idealized history. If there is one thing Americans remember, it is that there is nothing intrinsic to being "American" that prevents our government from becoming a tool of oppression and illiberalism. If we strip away the procedures and norms that demand open government and democratic accountability, we will not be saved from authoritarianism simply because the state flies red, white, and blue. Many people seem willing to sanction near-any assertion of power by the Executive Branch, primarily because they cannot even imagine that this state, our state, could succumb to the totalitarian temptation that has cursed so many people around the world. This type of thinking will do us (and the democratic project) in.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The Essence of Moderation
It isn't that I lie at the precise center of the political spectrum. I don't--at least not anymore--and I'll freely concede that. It isn't David Broder-esque "pox on both their houses", either. I have political commitments, most of which find far greater support from one party than the other.
No, moderation flows out of a post I didn't write this afternoon, on this Washington Post story. Here's the key quote:
Both Jon Chait and Steve Benen, writers whom I respect immensely, read this passage as the Post trying to accommodate Rove and Miers' inevitable lying. As Chait puts it:
And I was about to write a Post joining that choir, for such a claim is horrifying and utterly indefensible.
But as I read further, I realized the Post's point was different. They were saying that the oath is unnecessary because "lying to Congress" is a crime, even if the witnesses are not under oath. Swearing them in is thus redundant.
Now, I think this is a relatively weak point, to be sure. The lack of a transcript would make proof of any lies by Rove or Miers nearly impossible to prove. And perjury is a far more serious crime than lying to Congress, and would probably have a greater deterrent effect. Finally, while the Post seems hell-bent on avoiding a "constitutional crisis", I'd say there is no crisis on the horizon. What is on the horizon is a court finally smacking down the President's argument that Congressional oversight is a separation of powers violation (Think I'm joking? Quoteth Tony Snow: "The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."). There is no crisis, because there is really no question--outside Bush's fevered imagination, there is no doubt that Congress is a co-equal branch of government and indeed can hold executive branch agencies accountable. Incidentally, this is an example of the "bad" type of moderation--evading a conflict between Bush and the Democrats for the sake of avoiding conflict. When the point of contention is one party's insistence that checks and balances are a quaint relic of a bygone era, that's a claim that needs to be nipped in the bud (alas, too late for that, so nipped before it fully blooms).
However, the point the Post was making, while stupid, did not say that lying is okay. That was a misreading on Chait and Benen's part. If moderation means anything, it means hitting your opponents on their actual failings, not ones of your creation.
No, moderation flows out of a post I didn't write this afternoon, on this Washington Post story. Here's the key quote:
If questions remain, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should be interviewed. They don't have to testify under oath, since lying to Congress is a crime.
Both Jon Chait and Steve Benen, writers whom I respect immensely, read this passage as the Post trying to accommodate Rove and Miers' inevitable lying. As Chait puts it:
I don't don't which is funnier: the Post's casual, unstated assumption that Miers and Rove will lie, or its casual, unstated assumption that this is perfectly OK. I look forward to the Post applying this logic to other areas of our legal system. ("Mr. Escobar's runners should not be searched for drugs at the airport, since importing cocaine into the United States is a crime.")
And I was about to write a Post joining that choir, for such a claim is horrifying and utterly indefensible.
But as I read further, I realized the Post's point was different. They were saying that the oath is unnecessary because "lying to Congress" is a crime, even if the witnesses are not under oath. Swearing them in is thus redundant.
Now, I think this is a relatively weak point, to be sure. The lack of a transcript would make proof of any lies by Rove or Miers nearly impossible to prove. And perjury is a far more serious crime than lying to Congress, and would probably have a greater deterrent effect. Finally, while the Post seems hell-bent on avoiding a "constitutional crisis", I'd say there is no crisis on the horizon. What is on the horizon is a court finally smacking down the President's argument that Congressional oversight is a separation of powers violation (Think I'm joking? Quoteth Tony Snow: "The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."). There is no crisis, because there is really no question--outside Bush's fevered imagination, there is no doubt that Congress is a co-equal branch of government and indeed can hold executive branch agencies accountable. Incidentally, this is an example of the "bad" type of moderation--evading a conflict between Bush and the Democrats for the sake of avoiding conflict. When the point of contention is one party's insistence that checks and balances are a quaint relic of a bygone era, that's a claim that needs to be nipped in the bud (alas, too late for that, so nipped before it fully blooms).
However, the point the Post was making, while stupid, did not say that lying is okay. That was a misreading on Chait and Benen's part. If moderation means anything, it means hitting your opponents on their actual failings, not ones of your creation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
