Archive for February 15th, 2009
February 15th, 2009
Hardly a day goes by anymore that I don’t hear somebody solemnly hold forth on the so-called sacred principle that the three branches of the federal government are “co-equal.”
Democrats frequently raised the issue when they controlled Congress during the last few years of George W. Bush’s Republican presidency.
Well, I’m here to tell you, as I’ve done at least once before on this blog, that those Democrats were wrong.
Yes, the notion that the Constitution created three co-equal branches of government is an article of faith among most Americans. It’s popularly viewed as the provision that gives us our system of checks and balances. But it’s not true.
Most of the politicians who play the co-equal card (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both played it during their campaigns last year) intend to argue against any presumption that the presidency is pre-eminent.
But the fact is that the Founding Fathers did not create a system of co-equal branches of government. Rather, they intended for the legislative branch to be dominant, as is evidenced in the Federalist Papers and even in some of the arguments against ratification of the Constitution from people who wanted co-equal branches and regretted that they weren’t getting them.
Historian Garry Wills presents a convincing case against the “co-equal” theory — and against various other popular myths about the Constitution — in his wonderful book “A Necessary Evil,” which was published in 1999.
THIS GUY, too, raises a good argument against the theory of co-equal branches.
February 15th, 2009
HERE’s an interesting little essay on religion and politics in American history, filled with info that most Americans almost certainly don’t know.
It’s a wonder that some of our present-day theocrats haven’t started a movement to have the likeness of Thomas Jefferson removed from the nickel. After all, he was an avid Deist who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus or the miracles described in the gospels.
February 15th, 2009
There’s something fundamentally wrong, it seems to me, with the rule that allows a minority of lawmakers to block legislation in the Senate by means of a filibuster.
There’s no provision for the filibuster in the Constitution, nor is it allowed in the House of Representatives. Moreover, it wasn’t a common practice until fairly recently. But we’ve reached the point where it takes 60 votes in a body of 100 members to get anything of significance passed (especially since the Republicans lost majority status two years ago).
Indeed, the minority doesn’t even have to wage a real filibuster these days. It’s just a matter of invoking the threat of one, and suddenly the principle of majority-rule is voided.
There’s more on the matter HERE.
FOOTNOTE: In the 1991-92 legislative session, in which the Republicans were in the minority, there were twice as many filibusters as in the entire 19th century.
POSTSCRIPT: THIS GUY says repeal of the filibuster is long overdue.
UPDATE: The anti-filibuster movement is GAINING STEAM.
February 15th, 2009
C-SPAN’s survey of presidential historians is pretty cool, and the results are perhaps surprising to some observers.
Check it out HERE, and be sure to use the links on the right-hand side for rankings of presidents on certain characteristics. For overall scores, use the second link down.
UPDATE: HERE’s a wire story on the survey.
February 15th, 2009
Barry Ritholtz LOOKS BACK at the good old days.
February 15th, 2009
In his COLUMN this morning in The New York Times, Frank Rich seems almost to have been monitoring the comments sections here at Applesauce.
Funny, funny stuff.
