First, our federal government only has a limited number of Constitutional powers which are referred to as the enumerated powers. According to the Tenth Amendment, everything else is left up to the individual States. Therefore, anything that isn’t one of the enumerated powers or that is controversial is supposed to have a difficult time becoming law due to the checks and balances. Compromise has made it possible to circumvent the checks and balances and enact legislation that Congress has no business acting on. As a result, look where we are today. Instead of the powerful but unobtrusive central government envisioned by the Founders, we have a meddling government that imposes itself into nearly every aspect of the lives of the citizenry and threatens our sacred liberty.
Next, some would argue that America has a long tradition of compromise. However, if you think back to your grade school history or research compromise in US history, you will find that there are really only 3 compromises that occupy a place of prominence in our 235 year history – The Great Compromise that established the two houses of our Congress; The Missouri Compromise which admitted Missouri to the Union as a slave State and Maine as a free State, and The Compromise of 1850 that established which new States added to the Union would be free and which would allow slavery. In these examples, two out of the three compromises were not good and to the contrary were arguably evil. Therefore, to maintain that we have a tradition of compromise and that compromise is a good thing is not supported by the facts.
Lastly, Congress continues to pass bills that are thousands of pages long that no one has read, regarding subjects that they are unqualified to make decisions about, or even have the capacity to anticipate the unintended consequences these bills may have. The most recent and perhaps most egregious example, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obama Care) should have been prevented from becoming law by the system of checks and balances but they were thwarted by compromise and ultimately parliamentary dirty tricks and pay-offs. Fortunately, the checks and balances may have the last word when the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of this legislation and it is overturned.
The ideas that compromise is an unqualified good or that the mechanism of checks and balances preventing bad bills from becoming law is a problem with our Constitution is supported by neither history nor current experience.
BV knows a reductio ad absurbum when he sees one and this one is a real doozy. Slavery is evil. The Great Compromise was about slavery. Therefore all compromise is evil. In the words of John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”
ReplyDeleteCompromise happens all the time in Congress. Often, it results in good legislation (think Bill Clinton and Welfare Reform). Perhaps more importantly it protects the minority from getting trampled on by the majority.
Now, a compromise does not have a big "COMPROMISE" label like the ACME products in the Roadrunner cartoons. If that was case then you would perhaps make the argument that we aren’t at war because Congress did not declare one. But as usual it's more complicated than that.
As for the “parliamentary dirty tricks” it sounds like a combination of sour grapes and selective amnesia to me. Let me elucidate. First, that pesky document that 90% of your Tea Party pals have never read (the US Constitution) specifically provides for the establishment of the rules of its proceedings. Second, those rules are agreed by both Houses of Congress. Third they apply equally to all parties. And lastly, in the sausage factory that is the legislative process, they have evolved to allow representatives to get legislation passed. But don’t you worry. Unlike Fox News, I’m fair and balanced. And I’ll be here to defend the sanctity of the rules the next time Republicans filibuster.
My point was not that all compromise is bad. My concern was with those who think compromise must always be reached. Certainly, compromise happens all the time. Society, not just Congress, couldn't function without it. However, I would say that as compromise tends toward the "Big Compromise" end of the spectrum, the more it tends to be bad as this more often requires a compromise of one's values rather than just a give and take to achieve a mutually desired outcome.
ReplyDeleteAs to your example that we aren't in a war because Congress did not declare one, this currently describes our actions in Libya. So under the Obama Doctrine - We must act to protect against civilian deaths - is Syria next? And if not, why not? I know, I know - nuance right? Fortunately, we have an administration that is acting in accord with its campaign rhetoric and not trying to impose our will on others. Oh wait! My bad - Egypt, Libya, Syria,...
Lastly, contrary to your claim, the research has shown that those at Tea Party rallys have a higher level of education than their liberal demonstration counterparts. I'm not sure if this can then be extrapolated upon to say that either side has read the Constitution but we wouldn't want that to get in the way of a good liberal talking point. Aside from the research, the newpaper pictures clearly show that the Tea Party crowds are at least more peaceful, far better behaved and able to clean up after themselves. As to rules, you are correct on the history but not practice. Reconciliation was never intended to pass bills like health care nor was it intended to skirt filibuster since you brought it up; nor does the Commerce clause allow Congress to compel citizens to participate in commerce i.e. purchase health insurance; nor does the 14th Amendment authorize the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own. The commerce clause argument is on its way to the Supreme Court where it will rule with Conservatives. Your assertion that 90% of Tea Partiers haven't read the Constitution seems to imply that 90% of liberals have. This brings to mind the Jamie Lee Curtis quote from the movie A Fish Called Wanda - "Chimps read philosophy. They just don't understand it."
Michele Bachmann. We PRAY she's kidding.
ReplyDeleteWith everything that is going on in the country and world, I'm glad liberals:
ReplyDelete1) Are praying (To whom I haven't a clue)
and
2) Have an important Bachmann issue that has displaced the all important Elvis Death/Birthday anniversary mix-up.
Dude, with right-wing wack jobs like Michele Bachmann at your convention it's going be a bigger freak show than the Insane Clown Posse Juggalo Island video (bitch). Sh*t Dick Cheney's tell all is a yawner compared to your current fun bus. I want a ticket to the train wreck!!!
ReplyDeleteYour liberal Bush Derangement Syndrome has been supplanted by Bachmann Derangement Syndrome. Look into boosting yours meds, seek counseling, or both. You'll be glad you did. Life apart from your "John Nash" world is so much more enjoyable my friend. ;-)
ReplyDelete