Posted on 10/09/2013 8:21:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
There’s a narrative emerging among leftists pundits, commentators, and columnists that the current government shutdown is due to a fundamental flaw in the American form of government. Chris Hayes on MSNBC (ya know, the guy that looks like a 16 year old wannabe economist?) recently dedicated an entire segment of his show to exposing the “fatal flaw in our Constitution”.
According to MSNBC’s woefully statist anchor, our Constitutional form of government inhibits the ability for government to adequately (or speedily) race toward action. Which, in a way, is true. Fascism, in comparison, enables for a rapid-response-government that forfeits deliberation for action. And of course, that brings us to the main issue at hand: The Constitution was orchestrated with the very explicit purpose of derailing radical shifts in government.
Leave it to an MSNBC liberal, however, to take things a step further. The narrative, throughout Hayes’ segment, was that the “radical GOP” is exposing the flaw of America’s form of government. At one point the apparently constitutionally-ignorant host referred to the conservative wing of the Republican Party as the “most extreme” party in American history. I guess it’s nice to know that nothing has changed in over 150 years of GOP political involvement. . . I’m pretty sure that they were also described as “radical” when Lincoln was elected President.
More to his point, however, was the assertion that our government is incapable of functioning, due to the flawed design of the Constitution, and the “radical” nature of the GOP. . . Right. Because, an Executive Branch that openly admits it will “not negotiate” with the minority party is clearly not a causal player in today’s legislative gridlock.
The “modern GOP” is no different than any party that has held control of a portion of America’s legislative body. The minority party routinely wields its outsized influence to accrue a platform from which it can bully the majority into negotiations. That, contrary to the single-party ramblings of some left wing pundits, was not a flaw – but a deliberate design by the framers of the US Constitution.
To be fair, the historically ignorant Chris Hayes did, in fact, make a couple of correct points. His conclusions, however, were woefully off-base. At one point Hayes pointed out that our system is “an anomaly” in today’s world. But where Hayes sees that as a deficiency, our founders would no doubt see it as a badge of honor. Our anomalistic system is the reason we’ve historically been unmatched in our prosperity, equality, and individual liberty. Regardless of how desperately any political party, character, or movement would like to erode America’s fundamental existence, their intentions will be suspended by our cumbersome and intentionally deliberate form of government.
In fact, the shut-down illustrates the entire intent of the Constitution’s delegation of power. In the world envisioned by the authors of our founding document, Obamacare (regardless of its intentions, Constitutionality, or propriety) would not be fully implemented. Why?Because there is not a consensus among a wide enough swath of American citizens to give supporters political impunity.
It would almost seem as if things were working exactly as they should, according to our Constitution.
Then the segment got worse: Leave it to a Congressman from New York (Jerrold Nadler, Democrat) to make Hayes look like a simple victim of ignorance. As Hayes introduced his Congressional guest, the conversation quickly focused its narrative on the GOP’s culpability in obstructing America’s democratic potential. Nadler explained that Republicans are doing something “unprecedented” by allowing a minority movement (we have to assume he means “tea party” Republicans, and not Obamacare supporters) to control the “will of the majority”.
Um. . . Congressman, our system was set up to protect the minority from the will of the Majority. We are not a democracy, but a “Constitutional republic.” Citizens, therefore, are afforded the protection of representation with confidence that the majority will not strip from the minority their rights, liberty, or property. The Constitution is designed, specifically, to give the political minority outsized influence in governing as a form of protection from a “majority-rules” mentality.
This protection for minority interests inspired the creation of institutions such as the Electoral College. This was the thought behind divided government, filibusters, Supreme Court nominations, executive power limitations, the “checks and balances” of three branches, the length of elected terms, and almost every other provision in our Constitution that enables the minority a voice in the political direction of the nation.
What Hayes, Nadler, and progressive pundits across the nation, seem to be missing is that the system is working exactly as intended. What is not working, necessarily, is the art of negotiation. After all, it’s not as if America has never seen sharply divided political opinions before. Such political polarization, as it turns out, has been with this nation since our conception. And it was the art of negotiation, ironically, that lead the US to dissolve the Articles of Confederation in exchange for the Constitution shortly after our War for Independence.
The very document Hayes believes is “flawed” was written by men who were in the midst of equally troubling political times. Debate, gridlock, and political polarization are -- far from being a legislative nuisance -- vital to the long-term survival of the nation. The American form of government is not “fatally flawed” in the way that progressives would lead you to believe.
What is broken is the willingness to negotiate. And with a President, and Democrat leadership, who openly refuse to do just that, it is hard to make a legitimate case that the “radical” GOP is at fault for America’s political crises.
“MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: The Problem is He was Born with a (very small) Penis”
Well, like I always say..”when you are standing on the mountaintop, everything looks small”
He’s not going to remove it, just ignore it. And there will be no consequences.
Frankly, I think his talk of “invoking the 14th Amendment” (which, in addition to some good things, gives emergency governing powers that are pretty scary) is obviously a warm-up and the MSM is coordinating with him on this.
The guy (subjective) is such a puss. As long as he’s broadcasting the talking points he’s ok. The minute anyone asks a guestion He stutters, stammers, and squeals like a little school girl. He should always be ridiculed and then ignored.
This guy makes Les Nessman look like a lumberjack.
With generations of non-deliberative ignoramuses raised in, and issuing forth from, public schools, one wonders how long this grand design of a Constitutional Republic can last.
Rachel Maddow in male garb is Rachel Maddow... :)
The Constitution is the Charter of the United States.
No Constitution - no Charter - no United States.
“You are only partially correct in this.”
Minor issue. Congress has not passed a budget.
The president is not required to submit a budget, though that has become common practice.
Yes, as long as it’s THEIR monarchy!
MSNBC is not a news channel
It is a leftwing extremist talk channel
There are plenty of checks on the executive, its just that they stopped using them decades ago and using them now is considered extremist
Of course nothing in the Constitution gives him the power to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, not even hinting at it
Hayes was cheering the recalled democrats in colorado as bravly willing to sacrifice themselves “for the cause”.
Hayes is a fool. Eliminate the constitution and Hayes is the first one against the wall in an obama administration. (communists kill their own first)
They are NAZIS!
Then I should not be limited in beating your arse.
I understand why you would say that but you are wrong about there not being a push back. Just watch and see if he does it. There will be every legal avenue possible used and if that fails...
This is quickly becoming a Big Media meme.
Listening to People’s Radio in the car yesterday. The host was interviewing some pundit.
Host ask how can a minority in Congress thwart the will of the majority.
Pundit explains to him how the rules of Congress enable this.
Host asks Can’t someone take this to court?
Pundit patiently explains that the court would not want to interfere with the rules of Congress.
Host asks so what do you suggest? A Constitutional Amendment?
I am 100% sure this host would bristle and vehemently deny he had a bias or even a vested point of view.
Actually, the President is required by law to submit a budget every year, normally the first Monday in February. We have always done this as long as I’ve participated in the process, but sometimes, like during the change in administrations, the process gets delayed until March or April, and one year, until May. The Congress has usually passed Continuing Resolutions, which limit what we can do in the Executive Branch, but they’ve also passed full year appropriations later. There is no requirement to pass a CR, nor to pass all of the appropriations that are needed in the form of an Omnibus. The House can pass each appropriation (there are 12 or 13, I don’t remember exactly) and send them individually to the Senate. The only Constitutional requirement is that all spending bills originate in the House.
This guy is a morn, but at least he’s open and honest about it. The rest of the left agrees with him, but they try to hide it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
