Yesterday, Barack Obama claimed that invoking the nuclear option was necessary, because the "obstructionism" of the Republicans was "not what the Founders envisioned." Nearly 14 months ago, Matt Lauer asked President Obama about the feeling among some of his supporters regarding his failure to deliver on the promises of his first campaign; Obama responded: "What frustrates people is that I've not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out that our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes." The man who spent nearly a decade teaching constitutional law at one of the nation's highest ranked law schools, apparently didn't know about the system our Founders designed until he became president. It would seem that I was wrong to dismiss his time as a professor as irrelevant to the job of the president; teaching constitutional law for that long without knowing about the Constitution, perfectly prepared him to not know about the IRS targeting Tea Party groups, the NSA spying on Americans, the Justice Department spying on journalists, the Benghazi timeline, the glaring flaws of Obamacare, and so on…Obama invoking the Founders is like Karl Marx invoking Adam Smith; as he made clear to Matt Lauer, the Founders are an obstacle on his path---not his compass.
To be fair, Obama is not alone in his constitutional confusion. During the shutdown, Harry Reid mockingly asked: "What right does [The Majority Party in the House] have to pick and choose which parts of the government are funded?" Last week, a still-seething John McCain snarled that people who believed that defunding Obamacare could work were "very naive about the Constitution of the United States." The "Origination Clause" of the Constitution 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;" and the "Appropriations Clause" states, in relevant part: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law." The Founders even ensured that, in the event of a veto, the bill would need to go all the way back to the House, so as to ensure that the Senate and the president could not conspire to bypass the House. So what does John McCain mean by the word "naive"---which is not the same as saying that they are "mistaken" or "incorrect." Are they naive for believing that the Constitution actually matters? Or for thinking that people like him would actually abide by it? Or are they naive for thinking that something as insignificant as the Constitution could stand against the all-powerful "political atmosphere" of the passing moment?
Was the author of The Federalist No. 58, James Madison, also naive? Madison wrote: "The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government." That's as clear an answer as I could imagine for Harry Reid's snarky question, but maybe John McCain is correct in the sense that we are naive for thinking that the Constitution granted the House the power to use funding as a means to reduce or eliminate government programs that have the support of the other branches. Madison continued: "[The House], in a word, holds the purse---that humble instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government." Well, maybe it's the case that, while some power existed, it didn't give the House complete control to use the "purse" as a weapon to redress their grievances. One more excerpt from Madison: "This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." Or maybe John McCain is just wrong.
Regardless, I'm all-for the standard that Obama advocated yesterday; the Republican Party should adopt it as "the Obama Rule," and apply it to all acts of government, eliminating any act that contradicts what the Founders envisioned. The truth is, Obama is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they wrote a Constitution with checks and balances that extended throughout the federal government itself, and to the states and the people. His speech yesterday referenced "obstructionism" in regard to: "legislation that might create jobs…women fighting for equal pay…young immigrants trying to earn their citizenship…end tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas…steps to protect Americans from gun violence," all before his oh-by-the-way conclusion: "And they’ve prevented far too many talented Americans from serving their country at a time when their country needs their talents the most." The nuclear option has no effect on the five legislative items he mentioned, it only effects nominations. It would seem that Obama, once again, is unaware; in this case, he seems to be unaware of the Senate rules, which might explain why Senator Obama gave a speech back in 2005, which contradicts the speech he gave yesterday. He argued: "You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating as it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward.” Whereas yesterday he stated: “If you’ve got a majority of folks who believe in something, it should be able to pass.” Does any Republican need any more motivation to ensure that we keep the House and take the Senate in 2014?
To be fair, Obama is not alone in his constitutional confusion. During the shutdown, Harry Reid mockingly asked: "What right does [The Majority Party in the House] have to pick and choose which parts of the government are funded?" Last week, a still-seething John McCain snarled that people who believed that defunding Obamacare could work were "very naive about the Constitution of the United States." The "Origination Clause" of the Constitution 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;" and the "Appropriations Clause" states, in relevant part: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law." The Founders even ensured that, in the event of a veto, the bill would need to go all the way back to the House, so as to ensure that the Senate and the president could not conspire to bypass the House. So what does John McCain mean by the word "naive"---which is not the same as saying that they are "mistaken" or "incorrect." Are they naive for believing that the Constitution actually matters? Or for thinking that people like him would actually abide by it? Or are they naive for thinking that something as insignificant as the Constitution could stand against the all-powerful "political atmosphere" of the passing moment?
Was the author of The Federalist No. 58, James Madison, also naive? Madison wrote: "The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government." That's as clear an answer as I could imagine for Harry Reid's snarky question, but maybe John McCain is correct in the sense that we are naive for thinking that the Constitution granted the House the power to use funding as a means to reduce or eliminate government programs that have the support of the other branches. Madison continued: "[The House], in a word, holds the purse---that humble instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government." Well, maybe it's the case that, while some power existed, it didn't give the House complete control to use the "purse" as a weapon to redress their grievances. One more excerpt from Madison: "This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." Or maybe John McCain is just wrong.
Regardless, I'm all-for the standard that Obama advocated yesterday; the Republican Party should adopt it as "the Obama Rule," and apply it to all acts of government, eliminating any act that contradicts what the Founders envisioned. The truth is, Obama is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they wrote a Constitution with checks and balances that extended throughout the federal government itself, and to the states and the people. His speech yesterday referenced "obstructionism" in regard to: "legislation that might create jobs…women fighting for equal pay…young immigrants trying to earn their citizenship…end tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas…steps to protect Americans from gun violence," all before his oh-by-the-way conclusion: "And they’ve prevented far too many talented Americans from serving their country at a time when their country needs their talents the most." The nuclear option has no effect on the five legislative items he mentioned, it only effects nominations. It would seem that Obama, once again, is unaware; in this case, he seems to be unaware of the Senate rules, which might explain why Senator Obama gave a speech back in 2005, which contradicts the speech he gave yesterday. He argued: "You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating as it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward.” Whereas yesterday he stated: “If you’ve got a majority of folks who believe in something, it should be able to pass.” Does any Republican need any more motivation to ensure that we keep the House and take the Senate in 2014?
RSS Feed