Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

Separation of powers and all and I know Executive power has been talked about of late, since Bush II and Obama; however, I would say those are reactions to Congressional gridlock.

But holding the world economy hostage like this, and this by a minority delegation, just seems crazy. Families not being able to be supported because a major piece of legislation that passed more hoops than any before it, is still being attacked? This is just insane that this small group of extremist have such power.

Thoughts?

 

[Jackben]

They have power to keep the other branches of government in check. I don't think they have too much power. We might not agree with the decision, they might use shitty tactics but this is the democracy we designed and allow to govern us.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I always thought it was funny how the branch with the least power, the Executive, is the one with the most responsibility and the one that gains the most blame, while the courts, the most powerful of all, are allowed to do whatever and have absolutely no responsibility to anyone.

They have power to keep the other branches of government in check.

well...

The Judicial branch doesn't really have many balances, but can essentially trump the other two branches entirely.

The balances being that the Executive and Legislative branches pick the judges and they can override a decision by adding a Constitutional Amendment making it legal. The former happens once a decade or so, the latter is a huge barrier that's near impossible to overcome and is only used in extreme situations. That's... not really balanced at all.

Further, Congress can entirely shut down the executive branch, as we see here. No money, no being an executive. No laws being passed, no action to take for the President. He's at congress' will and the last 3 years have basically shown just how lop sided checks and balances is.

 

[Serandur]

They have power to keep the other branches of government in check. I don't think they have too much power. We might not agree with the decision, they might use shitty tactics but this is the democracy we designed and allow to govern us.

Pretty much, though I do want to add I think they have too much stupid.

 

[Vinci]

They have power to keep the other branches of government in check. I don't think they have too much power. We might not agree with the decision, they might use shitty tactics but this is the democracy we designed and allow to govern us.

This.

That said, this particular Congress may have more power than it deserves.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The problem isn't that Congress has too much power.

The problem is that many people in the most important branch of government are thoroughly inept, stupid, and unqualified for office, and they want to go scorched-earth and dismantle the government, rather than govern. They see policy as a game and mechanism through which they push their politics, rather than their politics being a way to win their way into pushing their policies.

That said, there are issues with congress. The way it is partitioned, in both chambers, is arbitrary and land-based. Elections are too frequent for the House of Representatives. The lower chamber (the house) is relatively weak in power compared to the upper chamber (the senate). And there is no way for one chamber to overrule the other (In most countries with multi-cameral systems, there are rules in place enabling one legislative house to override the other. In the US, there isn't).

If anything, Congress has too little power, or at least, they're too quick to ask the executive branch to do their jobs for them Over the last 2-3 presidents, how many times have we heard congress complain that the president isn't giving them enough legislative specifics for a bill? How many times have we seen the executive branch draft a bill on behalf of the legislature, which the legislature then votes on? How many times have we seen congress surrender the authority of regulatory courts established by them to systems of internal controls within the executive branch?

Etc etc

 

[Jackben]

The Judicial branch doesn't really have many balances, but can essentially trump the other two branches entirely.

The balances being that the Executive and Legislative branches pick the judges and they can override a decision by adding a Constitutional Amendment making it legal. The former happens once a decade or so, the latter is a huge barrier that's near impossible to overcome and is only used in extreme situations. That's... not really balanced at all.

Further, Congress can entirely shut down the executive branch, as we see here. No money, no being an executive. No laws being passed, no action to take for the President. He's at congress' will and the last 3 years have basically shown just how lop sided checks and balances is.

I think there is legitimate complaint to be had about gerrymandering which gets many of these congressmen elected in the first place. But Congress has the power they do is because they are meant to be the representatives for each region, people who impressed they want to do best for their constituents. Whether that can be said to truly occur is certainly debatable.

 

[casmith07]

The problem isn't Congress' power, it's that there are elected officials in key positions (Speaker of the House) who are using the chair to push a personal agenda rather than undertake the task given to the position to lead and govern effectively.

The irony of the situation is that some number like 70% of Americans oppose a government shutdown...yet those are probably largely the same people that elected the officials in question.

It's a bad situation. Holding the government and the country hostage because of a personal vendetta is shameful and should be an impeachable offense.

 

[MrPressStart]

If anything.. they have too much time on their hands.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I think there is legitimate complaint to be had about gerrymandering which gets many of these congressmen elected in the first place. But Congress has the power they do is because they are meant to be the representatives for each region, people who impressed they want to do best for their constituents. Whether that can be said to truly occur is certainly debatable.

The problem is, we have senators not even representing people. From states with so low populations, they end up representing large pieces of nothing. How do you balance the needs of California and all its people, versus a fly over state with less total population than a suburb of California? Both are represented by only 2 people.

The idea of the senate is really weird and feels broken. Your vote in Wyoming has more weight than someone from California.

I blame the Articles of Confederation. If they weren't so absolutely broken that we needed 100% of every state to pass a new Constitution, we wouldn't have had to compromise and do all this nonsense for small states that ended up breaking the system later on when the population differences grew more extreme.

 

[RJT]

-Two chambers with similar powers are stupid. Too much potential for a deadlock.

-Not splitting the Presidend and the Prime-Minister job is stupid. In most republics, if the Executive branch can't deal with the Legislative, the President steps in. You guys have no such figure.

 

[Cameron122]

Yes

Ave Caesar

 

[Don't Laugh]

would you be asking the same question if the house was majority D?

 

[akira28]

Congress doesn't have too much power. We allowed the voting pool to get too muddy and the people voted in have gotten away from us. This is for the American people to fix, but some of them can't be bothered, and some of them like it the way it is.

 

[AkuMifune]

Congress doesn't have too much power. We allowed the voting pool to get too muddy and the people voted in have gotten away from us. This is for the American people to fix, but some of them can't be bothered, and some of them like it the way it is.

This. We need to open the pool more, and our idea of what a "politician" is needs to evolve.

Of course our judicial system is also fucked because our run of the mill jurors are so inept that they seem to always make the wrong call.

So....I'm back to having no faith in humanity.

 

[Vestal]

Its not power. The issue currently facing us is brought in part by the rules governing this branch of government.

The house has yet to vote on a clean CR, which most agree would pass thus ending this whole fiasco.


The inability of the minority in the house to get a bill on the floor for a vote is at issue here. The same way that requiring a super majority due to filibuster in the senate obstructs their ability to get anything done.

 

[Poltergust]

Nah. At the very least, it doesn't have as much power as the Judicial Branch. The Executive Branch is rather weak in comparison to the other two, though.

-Two chambers with similar powers are stupid. Too much potential for a deadlock.

The reason why we have a Senate and a House is to protect minority populations. Having just one chamber would not do that.

 

[Tesseract]

nope, shit's balanced. swift changes bad, incremental changes good. politics is at its best when its like the slow boring of hard boards.

this shutdown was inevitable. you can't expect the gop to throw away three years of their lives fighting against the ACA without a big final burly brawl.

 

[Dead Man]

It should not be able to refuse funding to a passed law.

 

[Partial Gamification]

Congress is the House of Representatives and the Senate, the legislative branch of government. Its not too much power if the elected officials are reasonable. This really requires informed voters, and significant participation. Anyone complaining about the current situation that chose not to vote should reconsider being involved in the next election.

 

[Fenderputty]

They have power to keep the other branches of government in check. I don't think they have too much power. We might not agree with the decision, they might use shitty tactics but this is the democracy we designed and allow to govern us.

What the house is doing now is not how we designed it.

 

[LilWayneSuckz]

I think they shouldn't have the authority to control redistricting. They abused that power so badly after the census that many republican representatives won't have to worry about elections in the near future.

 

[Jackben]

What the house is doing now is not how we designed it.

Would you say it's more exploitation than flaw in design? The trouble is, how do you update such things? Such change goes against the same people in the position to create it.

 

[Poltergust]

Would you say it's more exploitation than flaw in design? The trouble is, how do you update such things? Such change goes against the same people in the position to create it.

You can easily make a law to say that if nothing is decided by October 1st, then it will default to what was decided the previous year.

Of course, whether such a law will pass or not is a different story.

 

[Derrick01]

The idea of how it works is fine when there aren't a bunch of militant crazy assholes who don't play by the rules in one or more areas of Congress. But now that the House is full of them it's clear that there are unintended flaws in the system, but I don't know how you fix it without booting those insane people out. The balance always worked pretty well for the most part before.

 

[Tex117]

The problem isn't that Congress has too much power.

The problem is that many people in the most important branch of government are thoroughly inept, stupid, and unqualified for office, and they want to go scorched-earth and dismantle the government, rather than govern. They see policy as a game and mechanism through which they push their politics, rather than their politics being a way to win their way into pushing their policies.

That said, there are issues with congress. The way it is partitioned, in both chambers, is arbitrary and land-based. Elections are too frequent for the House of Representatives. The lower chamber (the house) is relatively weak in power compared to the upper chamber (the senate). And there is no way for one chamber to overrule the other (In most countries with multi-cameral systems, there are rules in place enabling one legislative house to override the other. In the US, there isn't).

If anything, Congress has too little power, or at least, they're too quick to ask the executive branch to do their jobs for them Over the last 2-3 presidents, how many times have we heard congress complain that the president isn't giving them enough legislative specifics for a bill? How many times have we seen the executive branch draft a bill on behalf of the legislature, which the legislature then votes on? How many times have we seen congress surrender the authority of regulatory courts established by them to systems of internal controls within the executive branch?

Etc etc

+1

 

[Dorrin]

The problem isn't that Congress has too much power.

The problem is that many people in the most important branch of government are thoroughly inept, stupid, and unqualified for office, and they want to go scorched-earth and dismantle the government, rather than govern. They see policy as a game and mechanism through which they push their politics, rather than their politics being a way to win their way into pushing their policies.

Pretty good summary. You have a group of people who have been able to get into power due to some insane gerrymandering. That same group of people then hates the very thing they were elected to help run.

In the past you had two parties that didn't get along of course and had different theories on how the country should be ran but they did want to run a country. You now have this very strong minority of crazies who have had a campaign slogan of basically "Elect me to Congress so I can work to destroy it!" or "See government doesn't work, watch how it doesn't work as I defund it, get rid of programs etc, see how it doesnt' do anything for you!"

 

[Tacitus_]

I'm really surprised that there's no option to vote for no confidence.