That's hyperbolic and is really letting the legislature off the hook for their poor performance. Many of the things that people are upset about, say abortion rights, could have easily been addressed over the past few decades via legislation, but the congress was happy to allow it to rest on a shaky legal foundation via judicial ruling. Even now, they do nothing on the issue. You could pass a federal law saying that an abortion is to be legal in the case of incest. Who is going to oppose that? Rather than do that people want to make it easier to amend the constitution. It's ridiculous and dangerous. If the legislature tries and is denied by the courts then maybe we can talk about a constitutional amendment. But they haven't even tried yet.
Amen. I posted similar in a shorter form. The ineffectual legislative branch has ceded power to both the Executive and the Judicial over the last fifty to sixty years. Until the legislative branch stands up, this won't be resolved.
the legislature as an institution is not really designed or intended to pass 'offensive' bills, it is supposed to reflect the consensus of the states which should hopefully reflect the will of the public at least to some degree. it should also be considered the same gridlock barring federal abortion rights also prevents a federal abortion ban so those who blame all political failures on the filibuster should really keep that in mind. if the people of tennessee, mississippi arkansas etc decide that legal abortion is a defining issue then their representatives would in kind be expected to reflect those values on the floor. while that precludes short-term solutions (once again, as intended) i do not believe that it is a political impossibility as is so often claimed. however, for the first time in a long while, democrats will be required to actually 'do politics'
Congress is such a heavy-handed and blunt tool. There are plenty of better legislatures with more interest in these matters and with less ability to overreach. Federalism is important!
There is nothing more democratic than the court system where you are on equal footing against the government.
Congress is rapidly becoming a failed institution. They have gradually outsourced their duties to various administrative authorities (such as the FTC) to the point that the only thing they must do to keep the US running is pass the annual budget and raise the debt ceiling.
I think any time an administrative authority or, even better, the courts do something that a legislator wants done, they breathe a sigh of relief that they don't need to spend any of their valuable political capital trying to do it themselves. The fact that what someone else does, they can also undo, never seems to play into their calculus.
One example:
Well after Democrats were established as the pro-choice party, there were periods in which both chambers and the presidency were all controlled by the Democratic party. So obviously, with pro-life activists agitating to get pro-life justices appointed, congress spent nearly zero time passing any pro-choice laws.
Absolutely correct. There is a process for writing laws. There is a process for amending the constitution. But instead of building a broad coalition to go and do these things they would rather roll the dice with the judiciary. And when they lose try to change the judiciary. Completely wrong headed. We need to get our legislature working. We also need people to realize that living in a democracy means that you don’t always get your way.
Congress wouldn't ratify 99% of court decisions even when the text of their bill is very clear l. The argument you make in the last sentence of your post is very weak.
Honestly, the legislative branch can take most of the power anytime it wants. The Supreme Court interprets laws when they are vague, or when they are unconstitutional. It is loathe to consider things unconstitutional when they are plainly constitutional. But the deep division in American politics has resulted in a legislature that is almost incapable of considering major legislation that has lasting impact on Americans, much less passing it. They can certify a stamp or name a post office anytime, but something with as many moving parts as Obamacare was nearly a decade in the making and barely lurched over the finish line as a crude simulacrum of the original plan.
There's a reason Congress tends to enjoy a low-teens approval rating on aggregate (all Americans continue to vote the same legislators back into office year after year after year).
This has been a problem for decades. Congress' focus is more on self-preservation than good policy. For example, granting abortion rights through case law was always incredibly tenuous and now that's been proven.
I predict this will be kicked around the executive branch and bounced in courts. Even if it stands, like you point out, future administrations can just revoke it. All the while, Congress should be taking action and codifying this.
If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary.
That isn't an invitation for the executive branch (or judiciary) to overreach.
In theory congress could go years without passing a single law, and that would be fine. It would signal that the current laws are sufficient.
(As an aside, congress has ceded much of it's lawmaking authority to federal agencies anyway -- so even if they didn't pass any new laws, the legal code will still change every year.)
How is the legislature supposed to actually hold the Executive and special interests in check then? It sounds like the entire federal government has been neutered in terms of being able to actually do it's own footwork to guard against encroaching agendas..
This actually explains a lot, now that I think about it.
The obvious example is pro-choice people who wish that Congress would pass a law that favors their position, and have been forced to rely on weird Supreme Court rulings by activist judges instead.
You can argue that the pro-choice people should just accept that Congress does not decide in their favor, that this is a democracy and in a democracy sometimes you lose. But it's not like Congress has decided in favor of their opponents either. They just decide nothing. If Congress actually decided one way or the other then at least people would know where they stand and could stop feeling anxious about it.
Well, at least in the US, Congress hasn't been legislating for a while now. They handed over that responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branch a long time ago so that they don't have to deal with unhappy voters because it's always someone else's fault.
Indeed, if the recent decisions by the supreme court have taught me anything, it's that Congress has been incredibly ineffective at passing legislation over the past 40 years.
reply