enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Political Questions
by Silent Cal

A court case isn't the solution to every problem. Sometimes, political disputes need to be worked out by the political process. When two co-equal branches of government have a dispute, the solution isn't to drag in the third branch. If you send everything to court, you don't legalize politics, you just politicize the law.

The political process is messy, but at least it's accountable to the people. If the President angers the people by holding back documents, he will fail to be re-elected (or, if already a lame duck, will become unpopular and have trouble passing his other priorities). If Congress angers the people by asking for too much, they will suffer the same fate (except that they are not, unfortunately, term-limited). In neither case would imposing a judgment from an unelected panel do anything except lessen the people's power.

Congress has all the tools it needs at its disposal. They can make life difficult for the President in many ways, not least of which is impeachment. Short of that, there are all the methods mentioned in the article, methods which are certainly not "overkill." The Congress is the most powerful branch of government. They need only use the power that the Constitution grants them, and no President would dare claim the privilege again.

Re: Political Questions
by scottw

Very good points. The battle between the Legislative and the Executive will last as long as the Constitution is in place. What is happening now is precisely the system that the Framers designed, and it does seem to work.

I Totally Disagree
by ellamenta
You said, when two branches of the government have a dispute, the answer is not to involve the third. That is EXACTLY the answer. It is why we have three branches of government, instead of two or four. The system in some ways resembles a giant "paper, stone, scissors" game. No branch is supreme, but if two branches agree that something is proper, constitututional, and advisable, they should be able to make it happen.
Re: I Totally Disagree
by Silent Cal

ellamenta:
No branch is supreme, but if two branches agree that something is proper, constitututional, and advisable, they should be able to make it happen.

So if Congress and the President agree that a bill is constitutional, the Supreme Court cannot overrule it?

That's pretty much right
by degsme

That's pretty much what I've been saying as well. This is a struggle where Congress is trying to recover Constitutional rights and preogatives that the POTUS arrogated while he had a rubber-stamp Congress.

Its messy, ugly and very much the sausage making of politics as they were designed to be.

View as RSS news feed in XML