The Constitution (Reasons for a do nothing congress)

[jbfam4]

Sunday, July 18, 2004
THE CONSTITUTION AND JONATHAN CHAIT
_http://www.lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/_________




Bush and his allies have been described as partisan or bare-knuckled, but the problem is more fundamental than that. They have routinely violated norms of political conduct, smothered information necessary for informed public debate, and illegitimately exploited government power to perpetuate their rule. These habits are not just mean and nasty. They're undemocratic. . . . the most frightening lesson of the Bush administration: The institutional restraints on an anti-democratic presidency are weaker than we believed.

A-friggin'-men. I would have added the assault on science and stem cell research too, but Chait lands plenty of punches. Anyway, the question I want to pose is why Congress is refusing to do anything about it. Why are they all silent? I refuse to believe that the entire GOP congressional delegation is as undemocratic as the Bush team. In fact, I bet many House Republicans would silently cheer if Tom DeLay finds his way into a Texas prison. But still, they remain silent.

The true genius of the Constitution was its structural protections - i.e., separation of powers, checks and balances, etc. For example, House members were intended to be beholden to the interests of their district's constituents and to no one else. The President - or anyone else - could not bully a House member because it was the House member's constituents who controlled his or her fate. The same is true of the Senate. Senators were intended to be responsive to the needs of the voters in their state and to no one else. Or more precisely, the Senators were free to ignore others outside the state because those people had no influence over their re-election. In short, the Constitution intended to create a lot of structural freedom for individual members of Congress.



But it gets worse. In the age of national centralized parties, the problem is even more troubling. Given the costs of modern campaigns, individual House members are completely dependent upon campaign cash from the national leadership. They also depend on high-level campaign visits from people like Bush. Finally, the national leadership also determines committee placement (and that's an important "stick"). In short, in the modern House, Congresspersons must also be responsive to their party's leadership - even if it forces them to do something (like tolerate the Medicare Rx "vote") they wouldn't otherwise do.



That's also why the Republicans most willing to break with the Bush administration are veteran Senators like McCain, Hagel, Warner, and Lugar. These individuals are structurally free. They are popular within their state, and don't rely as heavily on the RNC for cash. They are also more senior, so Frist-the-Hack can't really threaten them by removing them from committees. In general, the Senate is far more free - again, in a structural sense - than the House. And it shows. More on this later.

[2Design]

1. yes we have become a corporate state and not a democracy

anymore and they use MAJOR proganda to sway any votes.....they have learned well in the corporate world how to twist arms....

even the 'few bad apples' were told to do what they did but it was not written...how many of us have worked in a corporation and had the same thing happen....

choices
quit
or do what is expected
the covert expected

if you don't it shows up in performance review...and no raise and eventually awful assignments and then you are out...

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. From abroad, I'd say gerrymandering is Congress' biggest failure

by the way, the link didn't quite work for me - this one seems to:
http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_lawandpolitics_archive.html#109016906601764922

The same blogger covered gerrymandering earlier this year: http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_lawandpolitics_archive.html#107526390729590739
"one important gerrymandering strategy is to place your party's candidates in districts with a safe margin of victory (roughly 60%), while putting your opponent in a district "packed" with super-super-majority support (75%). So, in both kinds of districts, there is no need to respond to the minority party. In these districts, representatives need only satisfy the median voter of their own majority bloc."

Gerrymandering is so profoundly undemocratic - the politicians selecting their own electors, who, surprise, surprise, re-elect the same politicians - that it would be comical to see the Republicans trying to defend it, if it weren't so important. While we abroad may be aware of the Electoral College, and the '2 senators per state whatever the population' rule that is not really justified in the modern United States, I think very few of us realise how corrupt the elections to the House of Representatives are. Phrases like "banana republic", "oligarchy", "mockery of democracy" and "18th century charade" spring to mind.

If you tried to use the same system in the new Iraq, you'd be laughed out of the United Nations. If there's something crying out for a constitutional amendment in the USA today, this is it. Voting boundaries must not be under the control of politicians.

[ixion]

3. funky link

I got a 404 error with that link...

this one should work okay...

http://www.lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/

Also, the title of the blog is:

THE CONSTITUTION AND JONATHAN CHAIT

[ixion]

4. good quote

"Political parties undermine these freedoms in an important way. For example, if the President and a Senator belong to the same party, then the inherent (and intended) tension between them is reduced. Conversely, if they belong to different parties, there is more tension than there otherwise should be. "