BUMP
Posted on 08/19/2010 5:22:07 PM PDT by bd476
Maria del Carmen Aponte, al-Safeer to El Salvador.
Don’t you recall the farce of Congress remaining in session by convening for only only a few seconds a day to prevent recess appointment?
I don’t get it. He has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate who would confirm anyone whom he appoints no matter what. They’d even confirm a cardboard cut-out. So, why would he need to wait until the Senate is on break? Why can’t he wait until they come back from break?
ya know ichabod, I hear a lot of chatter about amending or repealing the 14th Amendment, but I think repealing the 17th would be a more effective way to go.
The 17th Amendment did little else than make the Senate answerable to the National political parties, instead of the State Legislatures which is exactly what the Founders intended.
If we gave the States their skin in the game back, and made the US Senate answerable to all of the States like they should be, we would restore an important check and balance whose absence is at least partially responsible for the fix we are in today...
Actually, the traditional way the Senate works is that the two Senators from a state are given close to veto powers over confirmations that affect their state. Example: Senator Boxer could flag an appointment to the Ninth Circus by Bush - several of these got flagged 2001-2009. Plus, Congress refused to adjourn in 2007-2008, making it impossible for President Bush to make any recess appointments.
All the Republicans have to do is use the same playbook as the Demonrats, and filibuster everything until January 2011. Then work like crazy in 2012 and 2014 to get to about 72 Senators, and make sure we pick the best for President, and go on a massive impeach and convict spree.
“Did Bush make any such appointments?”
Remember John Bolton’s appointment as ambassador to the U.N.?
Granted the U.N. is not a serous post but still the congress technically regards it as serous enough to require confirmation by the senate.
“If we gave the States their skin in the game back, and made the US Senate answerable to all of the States like they should be, we would restore an important check and balance whose absence is at least partially responsible for the fix we are in today...”
I agree whole heartedly although I don’t think “partially responsible” quite describes the scale of the impact of the effective removal State power-interest driven Senate had on the Federal Government.
It must also be noted that although the the removal of this vital check on centerline power was devastating to American Federalism and thus good government. Reinstating it would not necessarily produce improvement. The senate as a lone body can at best veto new changes, which it would be at least motivated to do when such changes centralizing power in Washington, and thus away from the states.
The Senate cannot undo what has been done.
Restoring the Senate could only at best slow the progress of this evil.
PS: We would be wise to go one further with a repeal of the 17th in explicitly reserving the to the state recall capability thus making the Senators more beholden then the wacky Federalist originally wanted. This would help resolve the problem of corruption which we were told the 17th amendment would fix, when it in reality only made a lot worse.
Thanks for your excellent observations!
The only reason I don’t blame the 17th for all of the mess we are in is because I am sure that somewhere, we have at least one problem we could not pin on it; I guess that’s the optimist in me...
The Congress had a built-in governor, a two-way split between the People, via their elected Representatives in the House, and the individual States, via their appointed Senators. By handing control of the Senate over to “the people” (one of the stated intentions of the 17th) the governor of the entire Congress was jimmied, and the entire Institution spun steadily out of control.
What I find interesting is that one of the biggest excuses for passing the 17th Amendment, was that a few Eastern States, Delaware was one, periodically went for a few years without any representation in the Senate at all. The Delaware Legislature was so fouled up, they could not decide who to appoint to the Senate, so the seat stayed empty. At the time that was promoted by the press as some sort of horrible injustice against the people of Delaware and the United States in general, when in fact the empty seat really hurt nobody other than the People of Delaware who preferred to play victim, instead of cleaning house in their own Legislature.
What I mean is, if your Legislature cannot or will not appoint a US Senator, then it’s time for you the Voter to change your Legislature, not Amend the US Constitution to institutionalize the Legislature’s irrational and irresponsible dysfunction.
I would dearly love to have a discussion on a National level about this, and really start rattling the cage bars over on the Senate side. If we repealed the 17th Amendment, it would absolutely yank the rug out from under both Political parties, and would completely remove the need for US Senators to spend so much time and money running for reelection every six years. They would need to campaign to the sitting Legislature, and answer to them.
This would also significantly re-empower every one of the States. Right now, can your State Representative pick up the phone any time, and call your US Senator?? They would be lucky to get voicemail and a form letter thanking them for their feedback. Make that Senator accountable to the entire State Legislature, and we would have a whole new ball game.
My question today, is that man the American imamobama? Or the ayatollah.
YES. BUSH DID. BUT HE WASN’T APPOINTING PEOPLE WITH TIES TO CUBAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TO POSITIONS.
Oops...wrong person with cap-locks response!
Obama has a dem Senate...
The answers are, of course...."because Hussein is a commie, socialist, islamophile/fascist/radical, un-American, incompetent, destructive melange of psychological disorders who is destroying our country and who coldly never deviates from his agenda."
You will never hear these words emanate from the lips of Bill O'Reilly. He would rather be water-boarded than utter any one of them.
His best effort was on his 10/20/09 show when he stated "Obama is not a Marxist", and again on 8/15/10 when he opined "Obama is well-intentioned."
O'Reilly actually knows the score about Obama, of course, he's not THAT stupid....but it makes no difference to him. He is an Obama apologist to the core.
Although O'Reilly claims to be an Independent of some convoluted sort, scratch his leprechaun exterior and you find another millionaire populist socialist of the most hypocritical and see-sawing sort.
My favorite BO'R proclamation took place on 9/8/09 when he disposed of a guest's remark in his usual conclusive and dismissive way by stating, "Communism is not a threat to us any more."
We can lay book on the fact that on an upcoming show, BO'Rs burning question to us or to a guest will be...."WHY in the name of heaven did Obama surreptiously appoint a radical La Raza adherent to an ambassadorship in South America? Is the president tone-deaf......yadda yadda........???"
Leni
Yes, mosty judicial appoitments because of Senator Leaky Leahy.
I think this is something we, the campaign for liberty, and the 10th amendment center, among other groups need to talk about for a few years to raise awareness of the destructive effects of the 17th amendment.
No matter how you paint it repealing the 17th is going to be a hard sell. We got to get our argumentative house in order before the big professional politicians weight in to shoot it down as crazy. Of course im sure you already know this. Just want to make sure everyone realizes the hill we got to clime to right this wrong.
Now I know some politicians already support this idea for example Zell Miller once pointed out that the Senate became far more corrupt Washington Insiders after the 17th amendment were as before they were far less corrupt.
So to be honest I’m not sure what our opposition would be. I’m also not sure we should restore it to exactly the way it was before the 17th , like i said it might be prudent to add recall ability and clearly specify the function of the senate so that future generations reading our constitution don’t become confused into thinking its a political rather then structural job.
Excellent observations, every one. I’m not sure about all of the challenges such an effort would face, but it’s not supposed to be easy to Amend the Constitution.
I would also want a lot more information about the “unintended consequences” of such an action. If you repeal something in the Constitution, every legal opinion that was based on that item you just removed becomes null and void, and that is not always a good thing. If Obamacare taught us anything, it is to pay close attention to ALL of the details, causes and effects.
Cheers!
Sadly I suspect that many of the effects of such an amendment would be forgotten and ignored over time. Meaning modern courts would presume that such laws are still in place on the grounds of precedence never-mind the court edict was allegedly based upon that law.
That being said the “unintended” consequence of repealing an amendment should not be construed as to extend beyond the restoration of the state of legal affairs that existed prior to that amendment, even thou it is unlikely that they be fairly taken that far by our modern liberal courts.
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”
—Clinton presidential aide Paul Begala, July 1998
You must have missed the Daily News.
Obama has been on vacation.
Now that the SENATE is on Vacation, Obama is back in his office, working away.
As soon as they get back (or even before) he will be heading off for VACATION Again.
See, RECESS APPOINTMENTS take a lot less time, and a lot less work.
You just pick up a pen, and sign a piece of paper.
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.