Congress Is Not a Coequal Branch of Government — It’s Supreme

[Beaudreaux]

This is what I've always believed, because it's true. It's why I raised hell about every President that has grabbed power and the Congress letting them, or even worse, when Congress relegates and gives up its power to the executive. It's also why I don't like the Senate being elected by popular vote rather than by the state legislatures. The House is "The People's House" where the people have their voices heard and their power felt. The Senate is where the states have their voices heard and their power felt, well, at least they used to be until the Progressives killed that with Populism and Nationalism and were able to get the 17th Amendment passed - I feel it should be repealed just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

We have checks and balance in the Constitution, but not co-equal branches.

Here's the link: Congress Is Not a Coequal Branch of Government — It’s Supreme | National Review

Congress Is Not a Coequal Branch of Government — It’s Supreme
By JAY COST
January 14, 2019 6:30 AM

Our country has forgotten aspects of republicanism, especially the notion of self-government.

When Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as speaker of the House earlier this month, she promised the American people renewed congressional vigor. Congress, she solemnly declared, is “coequal to the presidency and judiciary,” and House Democrats would act accordingly. Democratic partisans masquerading as public intellectuals have similarly rediscovered the virtues of legislative power, touting the importance of Congress as a coequal branch of government.

The problem with this? Congress is not coequal. It is superior. The notion of coequality of the branches is a myth that has been popularized over the past half century, during the rise of the imperial presidency, as a way to boost the executive’s standing in the eyes of the public.

There are three main reasons that Congress is supreme. ... (You have to read the article to find out)

 

[Anagram]

I'd be fine with the legislature picking Senators as soon as state legislatures don't get to draw their own districts. State legislators drawing their own districts to elect Senators and also drawing the House districts is a problem.

 

[Mr Person]

This is what I've always believed, because it's true. It's why I raised hell about every President that has grabbed power and the Congress letting them, or even worse, when Congress relegates and gives up its power to the executive. It's also why I don't like the Senate being elected by popular vote rather than by the state legislatures. The House is "The People's House" where the people have their voices heard and their power felt. The Senate is where the states have their voices heard and their power felt, well, at least they used to be until the Progressives killed that with Populism and Nationalism and were able to get the 17th Amendment passed - I feel it should be repealed just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

We have checks and balance in the Constitution, but not co-equal branches.

Here's the link: Congress Is Not a Coequal Branch of Government — It’s Supreme | National Review

First, it makes no sense to speak of the senate representing "states" when "states" aren't some kind of entity independent of humans. They are made up by humans. The point wasn't so much "representing the states" as if somehow votes for senators was deciding what the state meant while the majority in each congressional district was something different (how?). The point was to frustrate the raging passions of temporary coalitions; factions, if you will.

The house was thus elected three times more frequently. (Staggered, yes, which is also a check of sorts). Senate, every six years. Now, if you vote in state officials and they then pick the senators, you've extended delay. You make it easier for the senate to check the passions of a more fluctuating house. Ok, good. But I really do think you go overboard there. Even in the current system, senators are in for 6 years. Which senator or house rep is up for re-election changes every time. They are still a check.

On the other hand, there is potential danger in the original system not now present. If people vote for state officials, who become incumbent, whose term of office the feds cannot control lawfully, you create a situation where if faction sweeps the state representatives, it then controls senate composition for a long time.

Basically, I don't see a huge threat to majority whim ruining the senate now vs. then. I do see a danger in an attenuated system that would let state government incumbents exercise out-of-perspective influence (wrong term; forgot what I meant) on federal law via senate appointments.



Second, ****. I forgot. I'll edit it in if I remember.



Third, we should probably define what we mean by "co-equal" first. Co-equal in what sense? It's hard to measure because it depends on many factors, for example whether Hamilton or Madison or Jefferson would like the current president's exuberance or lack thereof, whether that president was checked by the judiciary where someone had standing to challenge his/her acts, the political climate of the moment, bets politicians are making on which views are going to be more popular in the next election, and a whole lot more.

Basically, is co-equal equality in terms of ability vs. inability of a specific party/faction to get its legislation passed and signed into law? If so, that shifts constantly.

Ability to override one another? That'd be hard to pin down. The president and senate have ways of overriding each other, the president most with veto, and thankfully Bill's line-item veto got quashed. Ok. But there's a host of other factors you can't really measure that well, such as a President's ability to whip a base up into a mood that leads them to swear to vote against anyone who isn't for X or Y in congress. One example.




I don't like Nat. Review, but I'll now read the article...

 

[Mr Person]

Allright, the central problem with the article starts at the beginning. "The rise of the imperial presidency."

First, there was never any solid agreement on just how powerful it should be. There was never any solid agreement on most things, though there were some, for example that exactly 3/5ths of a states slaves should be counted towards representation (yeah I know...more complicated. Leave it).

Hamilton would probably think the modern President is a wuss not exercising proper power. Jefferson would ignore his own imperial actions and actions that seem questionable at least in light of the 1st Amd re: journalists/papers, and scream bloody murder. A slew of people would be in between.

The article also seems to forget early Presidents like Jackson, even arguably Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation as as military move (it was; he wasn't quite as ideal as he's been idealized).



Second, it overstates congress's power.

- Points out that they can override a veto, ignores the absurd difficulty in doing so.
- Notes impeachment of judicial and executive officers, ignores the absurd difficulty in doing so.
- " It can set legislative and judicial pay" (Woowwwweee!)
- "Discretion" in "size" of legislative and executive branches. (I take it this is in terms of creating or limiting executive agencies).
- "Design the court system". They already did. There aren't ongoing efforts to change the structure of district courts, circuit courts, and SCOTUS.
- "it can basically govern the domestic affairs of the country by itself. Indeed, it actually did this during the period 1867–69, when Radical Republicans in Congress acquired a veto-proof majority over President Andrew Johnson." (seriously? That's your example)?
- That because they first pass legislation that the executive must enforce (but see signing statements and age-old prosecutorial/executive discretion), they are "superior". What? If they pass the law and other people get to say how it gets enforced and what it actually means, ehhhh...not so much, necessarily.
- Federalist paper 51. You can pick and choose easily with these. But the question isn't so much how Madison decided his turn at selling ratification to the articled states should go, but rather, what actual powers were given to whom and how they have been exercised.


The trouble is that this article tries to freeze its analysis here, based on arguments in the past. But really, the balance shifts in large measure by who is using power and how. And that understanding is the key to approaching this document. It's about behavior over time, not a proscribed way of doing things. It was written in full knowledge of the constantly shifting movements and beliefs of the people. Individual founders may have fought about who should be more powerful in the scheme, and therefore it was designed to leave it rather ambiguous in many cases, but still always tied in at least some ways to the majority of the populace.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/congress-supreme-branch-of-government-not-coequal/

PS: Beaudraux, doesn't the third to last paragraph rather rebut the different claim against populism in your OP? Namely:

This shows the fundamental bet that the Founding Fathers made. Ultimately, they believed in the wisdom and virtue of the whole of the citizenry. They reckoned that if enough people want something to happen, then that something is probably the right thing to happen. So, provided that Congress has crossed its constitutionally established super-majoritarian thresholds, it can override judicial and executive objections and do pretty much anything it wants regarding domestic affairs.

If that's the bet, why shouldn't senators be picked by direct vote?

This gets to a more general problem with constitutional interpretation: so very much depends on who one wishes to listen to. The reality is, as far as I've gleaned in decades, is that it was a gigantic ****ing mess in which ratification squeaked by by the hair of its chin given the vast disparity in opinions on .......well......just about everything to do with the constitution.

There is no such thing as one true "original intent" or anything close. That's just the way it is, for better or worse (probably better, imo).