Shooting the lame duck
Ah, those obdurate Republican naysayers, trying to hold up progress during the lame duck session:
FOX has obtained a letter being circulated to Senate Republicans that calls for a filibuster blockade of any legislation not directly related to time-sensitive votes on taxes and spending.
All 42 Republican senators have signed on to the plan, which would effectively end Democratic hopes to push through controversial measures like allowing gays in the military to express their sexualities and offering amnesty to illegal immigrants who attend college or volunteer for the military.
…”We are now less than a month away from a huge across-the-board tax increase for every American and just days away from running out of operating funds for the federal government,” one [Republican] aide told Power Play. “It doesn’t seem unreasonable to insist that Democrats focus on those things instead of the remaining items on their failed liberal agenda.”
No, it doesn’t.
Nor does it seem unreasonable for the wounded Democrats to at least try to cram in as much of that failed liberal agenda as possible before relinquishing power. After all, the die is cast, the vote is over, and they’ve been turned out; why not get a few licks in before they actually have to clean out their desks and surrender their keys?
Lame ducks are widely thought to lack power and influence because of their outgoing status. But, paradoxically, they also enjoy the advantage of not having to answer for their actions by being vulnerable to loss in elections, since the loss has already occurred.
Defiant lame duck activities have a hoary history, after all. For example:
Such actions date back to the Judiciary Act of 1801 (“Midnight Judges Act”), in which Federalist President John Adams and the outgoing 6th Congress amended the Judiciary Act to create more federal judge seats for Adams to appoint and the Senate to confirm before the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated and the Democratic-Republican majority 7th Congress convened.
Other actions often involve executive pardons, such as the huge number issued by Bill Clinton as he left office.
I’m not so sure, however, that there’s ever been a case of the electorate roundly repudiating an entire party in control of Congress, and then that very same Congress attempting in its subsequent lame duck session to pass seminal legislation that it knows the voters don’t want (if any of you history buffs are aware of such cases, please offer examples in the comments section).
Usually, even parties that have been voted out of power remain cognizant of their own future, trying to protect it for next time by not insulting and thwarting the will of the voters. This Congress, however, has been different almost from the start. It has defied the wishes of the American people and become an overbearing majority, as presciently described by Madison in Federalist Paper #10.
Lame duck status won’t change that impulse. The only thing it may affect is their ability to realize it, especially if the situation emboldens some Democrats who managed to escape the voter’s wrath in 2010 to defy their leaders’ kamikaze plans.
One point of correction: “offering amnesty to illegal immigrants who attend college or volunteer for the military.”
Foriegn citizens who enlist in the military have their citenzenship naturalization expedited while still in basic training or shortly thereafter. I think spouses and children also get their green cards/documentation expedited as well, although I think their naturalization process takes longer than the service person’s, but shorter than the average process length.
And yes, I agree that after the Dems spent the last four years of the last administration talking down the economy, and pretending the last two years turned around due to the Stimulus/Ignored the economy in favor of healthcare legislation, that extending the current tax policies are the priority.
Couple points:
“From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”
Madison ranked the rights of ownership of property over “self-esteem.”
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.”
What we have here, is a failure to protect.
Our political system has lost its federalist element because the states have lost their power, and the judiciary, for the most part, does not defend state’s rights.
It is the states who must resist the overbearing Congress but they have abdicated that position.
Time for Texas tea!
I, personally, have no objection to naturalization for those who serve in the US military. Being willing to defend and serve a country seems, at least to me, to be an acceptable roadmap to follow.
I have a *huge* objection to illegal immigrants who “graduate college” here being given citizenship. All they’ve show in a willingness to stay illegally in the country, take a college spot which might have gone to a legal citizen (or to a foreign national with a student visa) and then have the expectation that we’ll say, “Oh, that’s all right, you can stay here.”
No. If these students want to be legal, they need to return to their own countries, and either get a student visa to study in this country, or seek naturalization through the legal process.
I’m not so sure, however, that there’s ever been a case of the electorate roundly repudiating an entire party in control of Congress, and then that very same Congress attempting in its subsequent lame duck session to pass seminal legislation that it knows the voters don’t want (if any of you history buffs are aware of such cases, please offer examples in the comments section).
It’s not legislation, but iirc the 1998 lame duck Congress proceeded with impeachment even though the voters had made their displeasure clear at the polls.
Iirc the lame duck Congress proceeded even though the Republicans had lost seats in the election, an unusual midterm outcome for the party not holding the White House.
Only Al Gore’s gross incompetence prevented the Democrats from retaining the White House in 2000.
@gs
Losing seats is a far cry from being stripped of control by 50 seats (192-242 with one undecided) . You proclamation of displeasure hardly equals the repudiation suffered by the democrats a month ago. As for proceeding with the impeachment, however much it may have offended you, the voters left control of the house and Senate in republican hands. Impeachment requires a simple majority, conviction requires 2/3s. We can argue about whether impeachment would have succeeded in Jan 1999, but that is question that can not be answered.
As for Al Gore in 2000, you misjudge the disgust that so many american held toward Bill Clinton. I know many people who made a special effort to end Democrat control of the white house, specifically because of Clinton’s behavior and handling of his office.
Lame ducks do not have to answer for their actions but they are only a fraction of the total. The rest have to worry about the next election. I do not see how Pelosi and Reid can hope to force them to cast votes that will almost certainly be used against them.
Cubz_Fan: they’re talking about the Dream Act. What the hell are you talking about?
Pingback:Nolanimrod
Pingback:Nolanimrod
“As for Al Gore in 2000, you misjudge the disgust that so many american held toward Bill Clinton. ”
Sadly it took the last two years for much of the charm to wear off and people see what he was.
Even more sad is that it took the last two here to see that ole Bill wasn’t as bad as we thought either. I shudder to think if the dems run someone who makes us wistfully look back on the Obama years for a democratic president.
From where I sit, the actions of this Democrat Administration (including the outrageous behavior of the Democrat-controlled Senate and Democrat-controlled House of Representatives) during 2009 and 2010 years have tarnished the word “Democrat” beyond redemption.
I will *NEVER* support a Democrat again no matter how reasonable and worthy he/she may seem; and I will *NEVER* support any legislation proposed by them, either.
PS- additionally, I will *NEVER* *AGAIN* trust anything the MFMSM broadcasts or prints. (Call ’em “American Pravda” and be done with it.)
And no, that doesn’t mean I like the Republicans. I’d trust them about 5 minutes longer than the Democrats; & that’s all.