As I have not written in quite some time, I figured that I would take a gander at the current governmental shutdown, and try to parse, in some small way, how this happened. As always, this is just my opinion, and I am going to do my level best to not shift blame to one party or another. In fact, the political issue (that is party politics) has colored the lens of many in how they feel about or think about our system of government. As so , we must begin at the beginning.
First, who holds the power in this situation? Is it the President, the House of Representatives, the Senate?? In order to fully understand the functional issues at hand, it is necessary to go back to 1789 and the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, the question is this; is it good that we have a government that has differences of opinion, and if not, is it better to have a unitary party in power, in which the majority voice dominates public opinion and the minority voice?
Article I, Section 7 is rather explicit in the function of the House of Representatives in the legislative process, specifically about bills that raise revenue. It states "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". That is quite a mouthful, but is necessary to see that the functionality of the Congress is clear as it relates to funding or what is currently known as 'budget bills'. The House begins all funding bills. Period. The End. Not the President. Not the Senate Majority Leader. Not the Secretary of Treasury. The House. Why is this?? Perhaps the Founders of our nation had a good idea on how things would work. The House of Representatives is truly the "People's House". Every district in every state is represented in that chamber. That means that the voice of the people is most clearly heard in the House. That also explains why the negotiations in the House can be so cantankerous. If you are a House member, you are up for election every two years (rotating). So, it would be logical to see that the member of the House would, by default, listen to those who elected him/her.
What then of the Senate? If the House has passed legislation, as duly elected representatives, what is the role of the Senate in all of this. Again, it is clearly outlined in Article I, Section 7. "The Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills". In lay terms it means this. The Senate has the responsibility to bring legislation duly passed by the House to the Senate floor. If they pass a bill that is similar, but has differences in language, or amendments, both chambers form a joint conference in which they compromise to ensure passage of the legislation. Compromise is necessary in our system, as ideology (either left or right) can hinder the business of government.
And then there is the Executive. All that branch can do, in accordance with Article I, Section 2, clause 2 is either veto 'in toto', sign into law, or do nothing. If the executive chooses to do nothing and Congress is in session, thirty days later the legislation becomes law. Nowhere is the Executive branch granted the power to establish negotiations, or to unduly influence the legislative body in its Constitutional right. In fact, the power of veto, found in the above clause is in Article I, the Powers of the Legislative Body.
So, we come to this. The government is shutdown. Every political pundit under the sun is blaming a party or individual (tea party, Sen. Cruz, Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid). But if we look objectively, it seems that the problem lies at the feet of the Senate. As of this writing, the House of Representatives has passed 10 spending bills (http://thehill.com/video/house/327235-house-sends-tenth-funding-bill-to-the-senate). So, objectively, the House is fulfilling its functional role in the legislative process. It would seem that the Senate is not doing so. I am not concerned with the reasons (not a CR, piecemeal approach, etc.) but am concerned that the functional aspects of our government are being stopped due to political posturing on both sides of the aisle.
The nature of our Republic is the necessity for compromise. No one gets their way all the time. My youngest daughter understands this concept. She is 7. The fact that elected officials do not understand this basic human concept defies logic. However, all we need to do is look to Tocqueville for the basis of the debate. When does public opinion infringe on individual liberty? The quintessential American question still drives our political thought today.
First, who holds the power in this situation? Is it the President, the House of Representatives, the Senate?? In order to fully understand the functional issues at hand, it is necessary to go back to 1789 and the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, the question is this; is it good that we have a government that has differences of opinion, and if not, is it better to have a unitary party in power, in which the majority voice dominates public opinion and the minority voice?
Article I, Section 7 is rather explicit in the function of the House of Representatives in the legislative process, specifically about bills that raise revenue. It states "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". That is quite a mouthful, but is necessary to see that the functionality of the Congress is clear as it relates to funding or what is currently known as 'budget bills'. The House begins all funding bills. Period. The End. Not the President. Not the Senate Majority Leader. Not the Secretary of Treasury. The House. Why is this?? Perhaps the Founders of our nation had a good idea on how things would work. The House of Representatives is truly the "People's House". Every district in every state is represented in that chamber. That means that the voice of the people is most clearly heard in the House. That also explains why the negotiations in the House can be so cantankerous. If you are a House member, you are up for election every two years (rotating). So, it would be logical to see that the member of the House would, by default, listen to those who elected him/her.
What then of the Senate? If the House has passed legislation, as duly elected representatives, what is the role of the Senate in all of this. Again, it is clearly outlined in Article I, Section 7. "The Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills". In lay terms it means this. The Senate has the responsibility to bring legislation duly passed by the House to the Senate floor. If they pass a bill that is similar, but has differences in language, or amendments, both chambers form a joint conference in which they compromise to ensure passage of the legislation. Compromise is necessary in our system, as ideology (either left or right) can hinder the business of government.
And then there is the Executive. All that branch can do, in accordance with Article I, Section 2, clause 2 is either veto 'in toto', sign into law, or do nothing. If the executive chooses to do nothing and Congress is in session, thirty days later the legislation becomes law. Nowhere is the Executive branch granted the power to establish negotiations, or to unduly influence the legislative body in its Constitutional right. In fact, the power of veto, found in the above clause is in Article I, the Powers of the Legislative Body.
So, we come to this. The government is shutdown. Every political pundit under the sun is blaming a party or individual (tea party, Sen. Cruz, Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid). But if we look objectively, it seems that the problem lies at the feet of the Senate. As of this writing, the House of Representatives has passed 10 spending bills (http://thehill.com/video/house/327235-house-sends-tenth-funding-bill-to-the-senate). So, objectively, the House is fulfilling its functional role in the legislative process. It would seem that the Senate is not doing so. I am not concerned with the reasons (not a CR, piecemeal approach, etc.) but am concerned that the functional aspects of our government are being stopped due to political posturing on both sides of the aisle.
The nature of our Republic is the necessity for compromise. No one gets their way all the time. My youngest daughter understands this concept. She is 7. The fact that elected officials do not understand this basic human concept defies logic. However, all we need to do is look to Tocqueville for the basis of the debate. When does public opinion infringe on individual liberty? The quintessential American question still drives our political thought today.
No comments:
Post a Comment