Posted on 12/23/2012 9:51:56 AM PST by Veritas_et_libertas
From the standpoint of one familiar with our constitutional history, the spectacle of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives making pre-emptive tax concessions to the President is unnerving.
Over a period of centuries, the lower house of the English Parliament, the House of Commons, fought for and won the “power of the purse”—that is, the right to initiate, as well as approve, all revenue measures. Based on English success, we adopted the same system. Until now, apparently.
Fundamental to the rights of Englishman was (and is) the right not to be taxed without consent. That required approval by the House of Commons, as the best representative of the people in the English government.
It also meant that only the House of Commons could initiate tax laws. Such laws could be vetoed by the upper chamber (the House of Lords) or by the King, but they had to originate in the Commons. This rule proved to be a decisive factor in England’s conversion from an aristocratic government into a free country.
But if the leaders of the Commons had made pre-emptive concessions as Boehner is doing now, England might not have become a free country. And if England hadn’t, neither would have the United States.
In America, we copied this aspect of the English system. During the 1787 constitutional convention, the commissioners [delegates] had to wrangle over the composition of the new Congress. A key part of the ensuing “Great Compromise” was the stipulation that only the House of Representatives—the federal institution most closely reflecting the people—could originate revenue bills. To be sure, a few commissioners tried to dismiss that prerogative as insignificant. But in one of the convention’s most memorable moments, John Dickinson described how experience instructed us in ways that mere reason never could:
“Experience must be our only guide,” told his fellow commissioners. “Reason may mislead us. It was not Reason that discovered the singular & admirable mechanism of the English Constitution. . . . And has not experience verified the utility of restraining money bills to the immediate representatives of the people.. . . the effect was visible & could not be doubted.”
Hence, the final wording of Article I, Section 7, Clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Boehner’s job is not to make pre-emptive concessions to the President. It is not to negotiate for presidential permission to pass a budget. His job is to lead the House to adopt a budget in line with the views of those who elected them and the interests of the country. The initial decision to lower, raise, or maintain tax rates should be made in the House. Any negotiations should take place only after the House adopts a budget, and that budget should serve as the starting point. Not the demands of the President.
The result was an awful experience with democratic, majoritarian abuse tending toward anarchy.
By the mid-1780s, most states were correcting their errors. One of them was to establish upper legislative houses that were either not popularly elected, or required a high bar of property ownership or net worth. IOW, upper houses intended to resemble the House of Lords and not be subject to the whims of the people.
The danger of entirely popular legislatures was demonstrated in our early history, a fact apparently forgotten or ignored as the 17th sailed through Congress and the States.
There's always hope - better yet, pray! ;)
Worse, the 16th, which brought the wrath of the entire federal government down on the individual heads its citizenry...
Nobody makes the move anymore and let things play out. They all freeze as if it's inevitable that the threat will happen.
Okay, talk is cheap. Let's see the House pass a bill and watch Harry Reid ignore it as the tax rate increas approaches. Let's see how the Democrat Senators act under pressure, too, not just the House Republicans. Just make sure to put a short leash on Mitch McConnell or he may wind up pulling defeat from the jaws of victory again.
Make them act. Make them live up to their threats, because then they'll own it. Go to Durbin, and Schumer, and Leahy, and Boxer, and Landrieu, and ask them why their side is not acting. Get Debbie Wasserman Schultz to say something. Get them ALL on record talking about the lack of action in the Senate, not just Reid. Make them all defend Reid's actios.
-PJ
Agree. Force the hand of Dingy Harry.
“The danger of entirely popular legislatures was demonstrated in our early history, a fact apparently forgotten or ignored as the 17th sailed through Congress and the States.”
Couldn’t agree more with you on that!
Indeed it did.
I'm going to stop clicking on these 'negotiation' threads. The crap being reported is nothing but smoke and mirrors. People need to watch to see if they raise the debt limit again. All the rest amounts to nothing but pennies and nickels IMO.
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.