And if you believe that justice is best established by NOT banning “assault weapons” and NOT forcing people to lose their health care plans that they wanted to keep, then the aspirations of the preamble are best served by frustrating Obama’s legislative goals.
Right?
Not specifically, but it may have blended in with the generalized claims that liberals hated America and were unpatriotic, etc.
Because, generally speaking, the government is able to accomplish necessary things that no other party can or will accomplish. Things like the federal highway system. Or the minimum wage.
They seem to have worked OK together on these trade pacts:
Let’s be careful about post not poster, here.
Yes, that would be governing.
The question wasn’t whether the President and Congress have specific policies set out for them. The question put forth was whether the Constitution gave them the duty to govern the country.
Right – except that my sense of the use of “govern” in the back-and-forth conversation was that it was excluding the act of obstructing Obama’s policy as “governing.”
In other words, as I read the conversation, it was along the lines of:
“All the Republicans do is obstruct Obama, in contravention of their constitutional duty to govern!”
And my point, with which you seem to agree, is that this kind of obstruction is also fairly characterized as governing.
So this definition you are using right now completely encapsulates the concept of ‘governing’ in your mind? Or is this a convenient definition that excludes many aspects of it in order to better make your point?
What about refusing to raise the debt ceiling to pay bills already approved by congress, allowing the government to actually shutdown and lowering our credit rating? Do you consider that doing their duty governing? They voted to spend the money, then would not vote to allow us to pay the bills that they already approved. How does that align with their duty as defined in the Constitution? How did that effect the ‘general welfare’ of the country? In a good way or a bad way?
You are glossing over most of their failure to govern and are focusing on one aspect (denying Obama legislative successes) as if that tells the entire story. Seems a bit fishy to me counselor. Care to try again using a more complete definition of ‘governing’?
It’s certainly one form of governing. Why would assume it “completely encapsulates” the concept? How would you want a Democratic Congress to govern with Trump as president, trying to shut down Mosques, build a giant wall on the border, and carpet bombing Syria?
That is not to say Obama is extreme in that sense (at least for me), but I’m merely trying to see if you can see where governing CAN consist of steadfastly opposing the president.
If you think that passing a law would hurt the country then it is best for the country that the law not be passed. Therefore since it is best for the country to stop the law, it then becomes a politician’s job to keep the law from being passed. Since Obama’s agenda would hurt this country when I vote for a politician I expect them to do everything in their power to keep that agenda from passing.
Politicians do not run the country in any meaningful sense. Their job is to pass legislation that they think would improve the governance of the country. If the other side wants legislation that harms the country then it is their job to oppose that legislation.
Emphasis added. This (or something similar) seems to be a common meme on this MB, but I’ve never seen a cite for it. Got one?
I’m asking Bricker if that is the complete definition he is using because he seems to be arguing in a way that indicates that this is how he defines ‘governing’. As if there is nothing else to it.
There is routine business that needs to be done by the congress regardless of which party is in power there or in the Executive branch, or what policy goals the President is pursuing. The country still needs to be run. If Trump was president and the Democrats ran congress I would expect them to at least tend to the basic business of the country such as paying the bills they approved to spend, and not shutting down the government and lowering the nations credit rating. I would expect them to occasionally vote on some judicial nominees as well since we actually do need the courts to be staffed to carry out the nations business. If all congress does is hold its breath and refuse to carry out its duties as defined in the constitution how can that be considered governing in any meaningful sense of the word? What would they be getting paid for, throwing a giant tantrum? How does that effect the general welfare I’ll ask again?
No, that wouldn’t be enough. Since much of the GOP agenda would be recognizably bad for most Americans, it wouldn’t be enough for Obama to support it. He’d have to convince the Democrats in Congress to all vote for it as well, so that the Republicans could vote against it and blame the Democrats when the GOP program is adopted.
(That’s just what happened when the Democrats adopted the GOP version of health care reform.)
Did you miss the word “also” in his post? Doesn’t that mean there IS something else?
Emphasis added.
As John Mace points out, the question you ask is answered clearly by the post I made.
To answer your specific question, while I agree that the time to make a principled stand is the budget vote, not the debt ceiling vote which your prior budget vote made necessary, I contend that this recalcitrance is an example of unwise governing as opposed to a lack of governing.
When it’s one of their pet desires, sure. Filling lower court vacancies and ambassorships (even Mexico!), not so much.
No, my post was responding to D’Anconia’s claim that there is nothing in the Constitution which obligates Congress to govern.
I don’t think so. You seem satisfied that simply refusing to cooperate with the President on anything qualifies as governing, which ignores absolutely everything else that is considered as part of that word. If that’s not the point you were making, then I don’t think your point actually answered anything. If you refuse to do any important aspect of keeping the country running and to promote the general welfare of the country, then you are not governing. You seem to be saying that as long as you are doing one thing that can be stretched to be considered part of governing then you are doing your entire job. If that’s not your point, then I’m afraid I don’t get what you’re trying to say and how it actually disproves my claim.
Also, causing actual measurable harm to the country such as lowering our credit rating should not simply be referred to as ‘unwise governing’ when their failure to do their basic job is what led to that happening. I guess I hold our elected officials to a bit of a higher standard than you do. I expect them to not purposely harm the country out of spite. Your mileage may vary of course.
Which contradicts what you originally posted, and what others posted, too.
That is not to say that the Republicans have been a model of cooperation, but the level of obstruction is not quite what it’s being made out to be by many in this thread.