Liars and Fools

[Scanning through draft posts to see what I never got around to putting up, I found this. It’s pretty untimely now, but it’s still worth putting out there.]

Meanwhile, Rick Perry is proposing a part-time Congress, desperately hoping to play on the institution’s current 9% approval rating to rebuild his crumbling presidential hopes. It’s amusing to see a so-called conservative basing his campaign on a platform of radical constitutional change. This is, of course, the kind of thing a president simply can’t do. Article 5 of the Constitution governs the amendment process, and provides no role at all for the president. Of course he can submit a proposed amendment to Congress, assuming the House and Senate leadership is willing to do anything more than ignore it. Now imagine President Perry sending Congress such a proposed constitutional amendment and expecting 2/3 of each house to approve slashing their own pay and limiting their own effective authority. I don’t know about you, but I would hold my breath waiting for it to happen. And let’s not be coy about the real effect of such a proposal, which is a massive shift of governing power to the executive branch. Thank god this pecker-headed piss-ant politician will never be president.

Advertisements

About J@m3z Aitch

J@m3z Aitch is a two-bit college professor who'd rather be canoeing.
This entry was posted in Politics in General and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Liars and Fools

  1. pierrecorneille says:

    This is going to sound snarky (probably because it is), but Perry’s plan doesn’t seem to me much more beyond the pale than a “read the entire bill” rule that some people advocate with more approval. I realize that there’s an additional absurdity with the former candidate’s plan in that he seems to suppose that as president he could somehow compel Congress to adopt shorter sessions (or encourage it to refer an amendment to the states). I also realize that in this comment, I am assuming as given the beyond-the-paleness of a “read the entire bill” rule, even though there are some arguments for it that aren’t completely unreasonable and that these arguments are advanced in the context of what appears to be runaway legilslation.

  2. pierrecorneille says:

    Re-reading my comment, I realize it’s pretty trollish. It doesn’t have anything to do with the point you’re making. I apologize.

  3. Matty says:

    Not sure if I should respond if the comment Im answering has been disowned but what is the problem with a read the whole bill rule?

  4. pierrecorneille says:

    Since I’ve disowned it, at least for the purposes of this thread, I’ll decline unless James decides to take it up in a separate post. I should clarify that I’m not talking about the rule that requires the whole bill to be read to the assembly before a vote is taken. Rather, I’m talking about the proposed “Read the Bill Act” that would require lawmakers to sign an affidavit affirming they have read the entire law before voting to approve it.

Comments are closed.