Could the House of Representatives be disbanded for refusing to perform their duties?

[Miller]

@usedtobe

“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?

What, now you’re the only one who gets to make up stuff and say it’s in the constitution?

Or did they assume that the good of the country would always be placed ahead of lunatic politics.

No, actually, we know that they didn’t assume that. That’s a big reason they wrote a constitution in the first place. And, incidentally, also a reason why they didn’t include a provision in the Constitution for dissolving Congress.

[Gyrate]

@usedtobe

“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.

Hard to say, isn’t it?

As I said earlier, the problem is that any solution that would allow you to undo this particular situation by overriding or removing the people responsible would be far worse than this particular situation is. It’s like unclogging the toilet using dynamite - sure, the clog’s gone, but you’ve also destroyed your entire bathroom and it’s now raining shit.

[Cheshire_Human]

@usedtobe

Hard to say, isn’t it?

I think I prefer the current situation to a dictatorship. I don’t know about you…

[Human_Action]

@usedtobe

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.

Er, why is the onus on the House to accomodate the tastes of the Senate and the President, instead of the other way around? Not seeing that in the Constitution.

@usedtobe

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?

Well, this in there:

@Article One

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

…And it’s there to prevent exactly what you’re proposing, the executive using his military forces to throw the legislature in jail for displeasing him, which had been a fixture of the government the Founding Fathers were leaving behind. Also, your plan has the President creating a new law (making obstruction of government or whatever you want to call it a crime), which he is not empowered to do.

This is in there too:

@Article Two

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he [The President] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

@usedtobe

Or did they assume that the good of the country would always be placed ahead of lunatic politics.

Hard to say, isn’t it?

This is a nice object lesson for the appeal of a dictatorship, which is probably the most popular form of goverment in world history. The making of law, like the making of sausage, is an ugly business, and there will always be a desire for a Strong Leader who can cut through the bickering and Get Things Done. We know where that road leads, though, and it ain’t pretty.

[Shodan]

It appears the Left in America is dividing into two groups - those who object to Obama’s alleged un-Constitutional actions (wiretapping, drone strikes, indefinite detention), and those who want more un-Constitutional actions like a coup.

Of course, we all know that the only reason the GOP would oppose a coup by Obama is because he’s black.

Regards,
Shodan

[Saint_Cad]

Here’s one major problem I have with the OP’s thesis - he contends the HoR is not doing their job which is a complete falsehood. They passed a bill that the Senate refuses to pass and they refuse to pass the Senate’s bill. We can disagree with their motives and we can blame them for the shutdown and the Republican philosophy of win at any cost (check out the recall drives in Colorado to see it in action) BUT the House is not under any obligation to rubberstamp the Senate bill. ACA may be the law of the land but the House is under no legal obligation to fund it. As an example, Congress refuses to fund IDEA even up to the partial level (40%) that they themselves wrote into law.

The House being derelict in their duty would be if they refuse to meet or sat around, drank coffee and refused to pass any bills. Passing a spending bill that you disagree with is not the same thing. On the flip side, isn’t the Senate doing the same thing with the only difference being their spending bill is the one most people want passed.

[magellan01]

@Saint_Cad

Here’s one major problem I have with the OP’s thesis - he contends the HoR is not doing their job which is a complete falsehood. They passed a bill that the Senate refuses to pass and they refuse to pass the Senate’s bill. We can disagree with their motives and we can blame them for the shutdown and the Republican philosophy of win at any cost (check out the recall drives in Colorado to see it in action) BUT the House is not under any obligation to rubberstamp the Senate bill. ACA may be the law of the land but the House is under no legal obligation to fund it. As an example, Congress refuses to fund IDEA even up to the partial level (40%) that they themselves wrote into law.

The House being derelict in their duty would be if they refuse to meet or sat around, drank coffee and refused to pass any bills. Passing a spending bill that you disagree with is not the same thing. On the flip side, isn’t the Senate doing the same thing with the only difference being their spending bill is the one most people want passed.

Precisely. Well put.

[PhillyGuy]

@Human_Action

Er, why is the onus on the House to accomodate the tastes of the Senate and the President, instead of the other way around? Not seeing that in the Constitution.

The Founders had the recent example of Prime Minister Lord North, in 1782, being replaced by a Whig after losing a vote of confidence. You’d think that they would have seen this an as a model to follow, given how much they disliked North. Instead they created a system with a weak legislature and strong executive. One reason is that said founders had recently expelled most of the people who appreciated the good points of the English constitution. As a result, they got too creative and failed to include provision for new elections in event the competing power centers couldn’t agree on spending.

As for why it is better to go through the legislative process such as is taught in US high school civics classes, rather than bypass that by shuting down the government and stopping payment of funds obligated by law: The new system of government by threats of default, if institutionalized, would cause wild swings in government policy. Being a political moderate, I favor more gradual measures to get my way than those favored by Tea Party revolutionaries.