Mind though that two years was a very short period of time in the 1700s because there wasn’t instant communications, so things didn’t need to happen as quickly nor did they. In our technologically advanced world two years is a really long time for the Federal government not to do anything. I imagine the reason the Framers didn’t have any sort of Congressional dissolution/recall put in is in part they thought two years to be such a short term that they could just fix stuff at the next election.
What if Adams had a House that wouldn’t pass a budget? Well, so what? Congress was absent from the capital for very long periods in that age anyway due to travel concerns, and the Federal government was about 10% of what it is today. By and large the impact of it shutting down for the rest of that Congress would have been minimal. Even from a national defense perspective, the standing Army was extremely small. [At one point it was like 80 people.] Defense was going to be handled by ad hoc call ups of militia in any case.
Probably the biggest problem in that time of the Federal government shutting down would have been the customs officials not being able to process anything coming in, but I imagine they’d have solved that by just importing stuff anyway and not paying a tax. They would not have shut down ports just because the tax man wasn’t there, and if some Federal agents tried, it’d go very badly for them in the rough and tumble 1700s/early 1800s and I wouldn’t want to be that Federal agent versus 1000x my number in stevedores and other types.
It would cause a Constitutional Crisis (obviously), but if President Obama ordered the arrest of the legislature because they didn’t do what he wanted, the Vice President and Cabinet would, in all likelihood, call that some sort of mental incapacity. Sort of a “The President’s gone crazy.” sort of thing
Does “indefinite detention without trial” ring any bells? Not that I think Obama would be stupid enough to try it here, but his administration did successfully fight to defend the power to lock up whoever he wants, as long as he wants.
It is set out in Article V of the US Constitution.
Two thirds of the states would have to petition Congress for a new constitutional convention. Congress has no power to block it, although it probably could delay the start.
It is hard to see how a democracy could legally require new elections for the legislature while the executive remains in power. What you propose is more characteristic of an absolute monarchy.
I’ve kind of been wondering whether Congress ought to have some military-style restriction-of-freedom thing going on. As in, joining Congress means serving your country, and for the duration of your service, you accept some limits on your freedom.
No limits on speech, of course. But when it’s budget season, Congresscritters would get locked in the Capitol with tofu, oatmeal, and instant coffee until there’s a budget.
Declare the House’s continuing refusal to originate anything approaching reasonable appropriation bills to be unconstitutional. Those members (including the Speaker, should he refuse to bring up a clean budget) are guilty of obstruction of the Government, and are seized and prevented from ever holding office again.
Give the States a month to send a replacement.
This time, the House does NOT rubber-stamp membership - each new member is voted on by the remaining (Constitutionally compliant) members.
In the meantime, all departments are authorized to fulfill the country’s obligations - financial, military, diplomatic, and law enforcement as they see fit (or at least all Cabinet-level Departments).
Anything here that a determined President and a (preferably) agreeable SCOTUS could not accomplish by Executive Order?
Remember, that last time somebody tried to tear the country apart in such a credible manner, the President suspended Habeas Corpses, and, IIRC, told the Supremes to stuff it.
In the sense that the President commands the guys with the guns, but only in that sense. To get SCOTUS to go along with this charade would probably require placing them under armed guard, and the military agreeing to orders to abandon the Constitution for rule-by-dictate. Not bloody likely.
[QUOTE=usedtobe]
Remember, that last time somebody tried to tear the country apart in such a credible manner, the President suspended Habeas Corpses, and, IIRC, told the Supremes to stuff it.
[/QUOTE]
It never reached SCOTUS. Lincoln’s administration did ignore a Circuit Court ruling, but released prisoners in 1862 before further court challenges were heard. This was followed by the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863. So, Lincoln’s unilateral suspension of Habeus Corpus was of a short duration, and was not ruled upon by SCOTUS.
ETA: 9 states seceding from the Union and firing on a Federal fort is a much more credible threat than a budget squabble.
Well let’s see, there’s the fact that the definition of “reasonable appropriation bill” is a political and not constitutional assessment. Even if SCOTUS didn’t routinely refuse to consider political questions it’d be hard to call defunding only something that originally passed the House 219-212 as being clearly unreasonable appropriation bills.
And other than the usedtobe doesn’t like them clause, where in the Constitution do you see the ability to prevent people from holding office based on their vote?
There would be a nationwide game of “nosies”, and the one people who would walk back into such a constitutional mess would be those not smart enough to stay the heck away. The situation would completely fall apart, and the United States would certainly loose its AAA/AAA- credit rating altogether by unprecedentedly “dissolving” the House of Representatives.
[ol]
[li]Which section of the federal code contains the crime “obstruction of government”?[/li][li]You use the words “unconstitutional” and “constitutional” in pretty much the opposite ways of how I understand their meanings. Passing a CR with some conditions is “constitutional”. In your fantasy, the remaining members of Congress may be compliant, but (given that they’re participating in a sham and a farce) I’d consider them much closer to “unconstitutional” than the word you use.[/li][li]Who exactly would have “authorized” the departments to continue to function without an appropriations bill? The President? That’s not who is supposed to do it according to our Constitution.[/li][/ol]
And +1 to everything Human Action had to say about it.
Passing the same thing 43 times is not rational or reasonable.
Call it Dereliction of Duty - I don’t think it is a stretch to infer that the Constitutional duty to origin spending bills means originating ones which have a chance of being acceptable to the Senate and President. After 43 iterations of the same bill, rational would be to do what is necessary to contine the Govt.
It is absolutely a stretch. You don’t seem to have your pulse on what politics is all about. You’re basically saying the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean.
What you proposed isn’t ‘continuing the Govt.’, it’s taking over in a dictatorial coup. It’s forming a new, improved, President-for-Life banana republic government.
Yep, destroying the country because you lost
A bill (much of which written by the GOP to begin with)
A Supreme Court ruling
A general election
is certainly within purview of the Constitution.
“Let’s design a country which will grow and prosper beyond our imaginations UNTIL a group of extremists wrest control of the lower house, in which case, they can destroy the country via economic sabotage”.
Yeah, I’m sure that that’s in there someplace, right?
Or did they assume that the good of the country would always be placed ahead of lunatic politics.
