Binding Future Congresses

Posted on | September 15, 2012 | 17 Comments

by Smitty

Not disputing Senator Mike Lee’s point here:

It’s true that there isn’t any state* passed from Congress to Congress, the debt, itself, surely counts. Also, mandatory spending, e.g. Social Security, counts. Though one surmises that debt and entitlements can be thought of more as a noose than any specific legal binding, like an international treaty.

So, there is:

$16 trillion of debt,
no budget in north or three years,
the Executive branch openly legislating and blowing off Congress.

My fellow Americans: this November is not the most important election of your lifetimes. This November is a referendum on the 1787 Constitution itself. While not passing myself off as a prophet, the early Obama Administration postvarication, where BHO supported Zelaya in Honduras, before realizing that was tipping his hand too greatly, would come around again in a second Obama Administration.

And given a second four years to drive this country into the dirt, Congress is bound to become as feckless as the Roman Senate in the later years.

In the case where BHO wins re-election, but Congress goes to full GOP control, then it becomes a question of whether Boehner & McConnell are packing the gear to reign in #OccupyResoluteDesk. Left to swing, Boehner & McConnell will swing left.

This is the point of the post-Progressive era: politics is no longer a spectator sport. We’re all on the swim team in the pool of debt, and if you’re not treading water and involved in making your voice heard, you’re drowning.

*Definition #2

Category: Election 2012

Comments

17 Responses to “Binding Future Congresses”

jsmithcsa
September 15th, 2012 @ 5:33 pm

Hard to argue with any of this, but it only works if you vote conservative in November. Failure will lead to national disgrace and dimishment (or even collapse) for four more years.
Bill54
September 15th, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

rein, not reign. But very good points. I do NOT trust the Republican party, but I “trust” the Democrat party even less.
K-Bob
September 15th, 2012 @ 6:03 pm

Good call, Smitty. Zombie says the gloves need to come off.

Not that you and Stacy exactly pull your punches here, but Zombie’s examples are more like what I think we could stand to see more of.
Quartermaster
September 15th, 2012 @ 8:13 pm

Every Federal Election is a referendum on the constitution of 1787 as amended. This election no different.

I only wish we could vote for a conservative this November.
Shutterbug
September 15th, 2012 @ 9:54 pm

“While not passing myself off as a prophet, the early Obama Administration postvarication, where BHO supported Zelaya in Honduras, before realizing that was tipping his hand too greatly”

Smitty, when Obama and Hillary were decrying the removal of Zelaya by the Supreme Court of Honduras, I knew that it was because Obama wished to successfully attempt the same trick to stay in office beyond his elected term.

You do not overstate the importance of the upcoming election.
jim
September 15th, 2012 @ 10:27 pm

I like your “feckless as the Roman Senate” comment. If Obama is re-elected, what will be his “horse appointed as Senator” moment?
Blog Goliard
September 15th, 2012 @ 11:35 pm

May I introduce to you the Vice President of the United States?
Thane_Eichenauer
September 16th, 2012 @ 2:07 am

If John Boehner hasn’t seen enough to impeach any administration officials so far why should any given voter have confidence that he will do so after the election? The US government is lawless. Relying on the current Republican party is as foolish as relying on unicorns to come to the rescue.
Ten
September 16th, 2012 @ 8:39 am

Where’d you come up with sixteen trillion in debt, Smitty?
Laurence
September 16th, 2012 @ 8:40 am

While true of late that the President gets to pick his running mate, the Vice President is a Constitutionally defines elective official who does not have to work for the President. True, we now have a horse’s ass serving but the people themselves would have to vote for a horse as VP or Senator.

Obama could, however, recess appoint a horse to the executive branch.
Laurence
September 16th, 2012 @ 8:54 am

RE: Also, mandatory spending, e.g. Social Security, counts.

This is not true. There have already been court decisions stating that the fate of Social Security and other entitlements rests in the hands of the current congress. The courts have stated that benefits can be reduced or ended – reductions occurred in the 1980s – and people who have been forced to pay into the system have been rules ineligible for any benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

… This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are “an earned right.” This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility–and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
Mike Rogers
September 16th, 2012 @ 9:07 am

You can tell someone who is well informed by whether they are aware that the black king and red queen sided with Hugo Chavez and Manuel Zelaya over Honduras.
I’m sure he’d try it here if he thought he could get away with it, which is why he must be defeated in a landslide.
Mike Rogers
September 16th, 2012 @ 9:08 am

Your inner techie is showing. Stateful, indeed
Blog Goliard
September 16th, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

…whether or not Congress was actually in recess.
Laurence
September 16th, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

Impeachment is a political issue. Why waste the political capital when there is no way it would get thru the Senate? The Democrats would vote Obama not guilty without even holding hearings.
@Instapundit Calls For Obama’s Resignation « The Camp Of The Saints
September 16th, 2012 @ 6:46 pm

[…] stuck with having Election Day being our only immediate hope of casting Caesar from office. As Smitty wrote regarding a related story: My fellow Americans: this November is not the most important election […]
Thane_Eichenauer
September 16th, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

The US government is a political organization and the US Constitution provided a (political) method to address malfeasance in office. To me initating impeachment lets We the People know that there are people who are disobeying the law, it sets down their actions in print so that all parties (including We the People) know what the problem is alleged to be and it provides a forum for the accused to rebut those accusations. Without even the attempt at impeachment We the People have to rely upon the media and the internet to decide who is misbehaving. In general since most of the media is skilled at portraying Republicans as bad guys in general then most people will think that “why things aren’t getting better” is the fault of the Republicans. The effort of starting an impeachment is worth in in my opinion. After reading Bob Barr’s book “The Meaning of Is” I believe that the Clinton impeachment effort was scuttled from the get go. Even so I am happy that the effort was started even it Clinton was not removed from office. Without the effort there is plenty I could never have looked up and seen what the accusations were and what the end verdict was.

If elected Republicans have some magical jar of capital they consult before they decide to take the appropriate steps against rogues then I believe they are lacking in gumption in the first place.