Month: April 2009

Federalist Nos. 76 – 77

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Federalist Nos 76 and 77 discuss the power of the president to nominate people for high government offices. I notice that these papers use some of the very same arguments in defending these powers of the president as were used to defend other powers that were to be vested in the proposed executive. I also noticed another instance of an assumption which has since been completely reversed:

A change of the Chief Magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so violent or so general a revolution in the officers of the government as might be expected, if he were the sole disposer of offices. Where a man in any station had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new President would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a person more agreeable to him.

Contrary to what Hamilton expected, it is now the exception when one president retains the services of someone appointed by a previous president unless the previous president came from the same party as the current president.

I also took note of the pattern by which the government was laid out. Those powers which had the greatest need for expedience (such as nominating and the making of treaties) were placed in the executive branch with the power to negate being given to the Senate where necessary. Those powers which had the greater need for deliberation (such as the making of laws) were granted to the legislative branch with the conditional power to negate (meaning that the veto was not absolute) given to the President. The setup realy is a very well constructed balance with the judicial branch present to independently arbit between parties when there were doubts regarding conflicting opinions

Tags documents, federalist, history, senate

National

Obama’s First 100

Today is day number 100 for the Obama Administration. This has been a benchmark of measurement for every administration since FDR. There will be lots of stories in the political media attempting to measure how he is doing as a president. This morning on NPR they perfectly captured the measure in only six words:

His backers give him high marks.

I add my own perspective as someone who is not sold on Obama but holds out hope that he will eventually do the best job he could do by focusing on those areas where he is right (things like real increased transparency in government). My position is largely unchanged from when Obama was elected and when he was sworn in.

If we simply add the fact that those who oppose him give him low marks we can easily see the correct answer to “how is Obama doing in his first 100 days?”

The answer is that 100 days is too soon to tell how Obama will fare over the course of 1461 days (or 2922 days for two terms). This is perfectly typical. We could not have known after 100 days what things Bush was going to do well and which things he was going to botch horribly over his two terms. The same can be said of Clinton or any of his predecessors.

So, Happy 100 Days Mr. President. May my greatest hopes for your tenure be realized or at least may we come closer to my greatest hopes than we come to my greatest fears.

Tags Bush, Clinton, history, media, NPR, Obama

State

Hoping History Holds

Nobody with a political pulse in Utah could be surprised at the news that Sens. Bennett and Hatch plan to run again, especially considering that they both have their campaign websites up and running already (yes, even Hatch for 2012). I have often been discouraged by the assertions of a trusted friend that Hatch is unbeatable for as long as he chooses to run after being in the Senate for over 30 years. My hope that he is wrong got a boost from that Deseret News article.

Holly provides a good rundown against the "seniority is everything" argument of our two senators and we have the next 3 years to disprove Hatch’s assertion that "Sen. Bennett and I work as hard every day for Utahns as the first day we set foot in the U.S. Senate." (They undoubtedly work hard, but the more I look at their records the less I am convinced that either of them work for Utahns anymore like they did the first day they set foot in the Senate.) I would like to provide a proactive argument for why both of our senators should be replaced now even if you believe the seniority argument.

First of all, neither of our Senators is getting any younger so they will have to be replaced sooner than they would like to admit. While they would both like to be compared to the LDS apostles since few people among their voters would care to think of the apostles in a negative light, the fact is that there is a vast difference between the temporary election of a political officeholder and the permanent appointment of an ecclesiastical leader. We know going in that the apostles are there for life, not so with the senators.

Secondly, the Republican party is out of power right now (especially with Arlen Specter switching parties so that the Democrats will have the 60 vote margin to end any attempted filibuster) which diminishes the value of any seniority they have amassed in their decades in office. The Democrats may maintain the 60 seat majority in 2010, but even if they don’t they are virtually assured of maintaining control of the senate. That means that now is the time to elect some new senators so that they can start building their seniority in advance of 2014 (the earliest that Republicans have any real shot at regaining control) rather than waiting until 2016, 2018, or whenever one of our senators fails his immortality test.

Tags 2010, 2012, Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, connections, Deseret News, Orrin Hatch, Pennsylvania, senate, seniority, Utah

General

Considering Secession

An intriguing discussion erupted after a recent post by Connor. I was soon asking what history would have looked like if the South had been allowed to secede rather than fight the Civil War. Later another commenter asked an even better question:

By allowing the South to secede, wouldn’t that be setting up a dangerous precedent? If any state decided to leave just because Congress passed a law they didn’t like, what would have happened to the nation?

Under such an interpretation, what security did the nation have beyond what the Articles of Confederation provided? The Articles weren’t working. That’s why they created a Constitution that gave more expanded powers to a central government.

Considering recent comments regarding Texas choosing to secede and polls that a surprising number of Texans seem open to the concept I’d like to take a crack at answering what might have happened in those circumstances and I would be very interested to know what others think of the question or of my answer. For the sake of this supposition let’s assume that we are talking about an alternate history where the people of the United States accepted the premise that secession was a legal option and not a cause for war. We are also not talking specifically about secession by the southern states – just about a nation in which any state could decide to leave just because Congress passed a law they didn’t like and that the remaining states would not resort to violence to keep them in the union. In other words there might be arguments against secession in general or in specific cases, but no military action. With that background, here is what I believe would happen.

Any state that chose to secede would immediately relegate themselves to a position with all the disadvantages they had faced under the Articles of Confederation as well as the disadvantage of not having between 12 and 49 (depending on when in history this happened) other states upon which to lean for support. They would be required to provide for their own protections (economic and military) without assistance from their neighbor states. In all likelyhood they would very quickly be looking to form alliances with other states and other nations. In some cases they would likely begin very soon to consider the possibility of rejoining the United States. In such cases they would find themselves facing the requirements for joining the union. Having antagonized the other states in the union they would have to convince the congress to allow them back into membership within the United States. That and their experience under the Articles of Confederation would act as a deterrent to states that wanted to secede for light or transient reasons.

Assuming that there are no major holes in my reasoning above I think it is safe to say that there would be few if any cases of individual states seceding. That leaves us to consider the potential of blocks of states seceding such as the southern states in 1860. In this case we can easily see that a block of states seceding together would be inclined to form a union not unlike the one they were leaving. If two similarly structured nations composed of soverign states were to exist in close proximity to each other and to unsettled land waiting for expansion I think it is safe to assume that the two nations would be driven to compete with each other to become more politically and economically powerful and attractive to the settlers of new lands so that new political entities would chose them over their counterpart when they decided to become a member of a larger political entity. I don’t suppose that the nations would exist entirely without animosity, but they could peacefully coexist as the United States and Canada have done for nearly two centuries.

If legal secession were a political reality any number of possibilities might exist. A single state residing outside any other union would be highly unlikely, but North America could be divided into any number of unions made of sovereign states. In fact a policy allowing for legal secession could leave the door open for Canadian provinces or Mexican states joining a union as sovereign states. I believe that eventually legally accepted secession would have resulted in one or two strong unions of states in which the central government was limited more closely to what our Constitution outlined – focusing on foreign relations, military defense, and interstate issues and leaving states to independently tackle other issues and learn from each other. In the case of two stable unions existing I would give better that 50% odds that their relations with each other would be fundamentally peaceful.

The short answer is that I do not believe allowing the secession of the south would have been setting a dangerous precedent (at least from the angle of how viable the central government would remain). That leaves the question – have I missed something?

Tags Articles of Confederation, connections, Constitution, history, questions, secession

General

Federalist Nos. 74 – 75

Federalist No. 74 discusses the power of the president to command the military and grant pardons. Federalist No. 75 discusses the power of the president related to the making of treaties. Neither of the papers is particularly remarkable unless you have concerns related to those issues (I don’t) but it was interesting to read Hamilton’s remarks discussing the way that the making of treaties did not comfortably fit entirely within the powers of the legislative branch, nor completely within the powers of the executive branch – thus necessitating the mixture of presidential and senatorial influence on the process.

Tags documents, federalist, history, senate

General

Federalist No. 73

Federalist No. 73 demonstrates two instances where the framers of the Constitution designed not for a virtuous system, but for a system riddled with human fallibility. The static nature of executive compensation helps mitigate the human fallibility of the executive.

There are men who could neither be distressed nor won into a sacrifice of their duty; but this stern virtue is the growth of few soils; and in the main it will be found that a power over a man’s support is a power over his will.

On the other hand, the qualified veto helps to mitigate the human fallibility that would be present in the legislative branch:

The propriety of the thing does not turn upon the supposition of superior wisdom or virtue in the Executive, but upon the supposition that the legislature will not be infallible; that the love of power may sometimes betray it into a disposition to encroach upon the rights of other members of the government; that a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations; that impressions of the moment may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself, on maturer reflection, would condemn.

This paper also includes what could be used as a yardstick to measure how well our government is working:

It is far less probable, that culpable views of any kind should infect all the parts of the government at the same moment and in relation to the same object, than that they should by turns govern and mislead every one of them.

The measure is that the more we see the different branches of government succumbing to the same undesirable forces the worse off our government is doing. Hamilton obviously recognized this as he expressed this hope:

It is to be hoped that it will not often happen that improper views will govern so large a proportion as two thirds of both branches of the legislature at the same time; and this, too, in spite of the counterposing weight of the Executive.

Tags documents, federalist, history, vetoes

State

How Very Ironic

When I attended the breakfast meeting with Senator Bennett, he mentioned Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter – the three Republicans to support the Obama bailout bill – as "the three predictable crossover voters." I found it very ironic to read the results of a poll of Democratic Senators:

In fact, Hatch ranks No. 3 among Republicans whom Democrats say are the least partisan and most enjoyable to work with — behind only Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine (liberal Republicans who were among the few GOP members who supported Obama’s stimulus package), that newspaper reported.

Apparently Senator Bennett didn’t want to remind attendees that our conservative state is represented by some not-so-conservative senators. He got Collins and Snowe right, but Specter is not #3 on the list. While Bennett was not among the easiest Republicans to work with according to the overall poll results, he was listed as being among the easiest to work with by four of his Democratic colleagues – I’m sure another term or two can finish softening him up.

The results also confirmed what I had concluded – that Hatch was once conservative:

That is a big change from Hatch’s early career, when he was seen as one of the most conservative and pugnacious Senate Republicans. Now, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., told The Hill, for example, that Hatch is among those who "want to get something done, and they’re not necessarily driven by ideology."

I have come to appreciate the fact that Hatch was conservative in the early part of his career and I am not opposed to having a politician who knows when to compromise. I do have serious issues with elected officials who just "want to get something done." They do the nation and their constituents no end of disservice when they take action for no reason other than to appear active. I also have serious issues with any politician who does not seem to know when to hold their ground and stand on principle – a skill that Hatch has lost if he ever really understood the proper line.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, compromise, Orrin Hatch, parties, senate

National

An Unbiased Perspective

Admittedly I am a person who does not believe that anyone is unbiased – and I’m fine with that. The closest a person comes to unbiased is when they can state a position which contradicts their biases or while acknowledging how that position does not support their biases. When President Obama said that $100 Million here and there eventually adds up to real money in Washington I could not help but notice when Paul Krugman – not exactly the strongest proponent of smaller government – disagreed. He calculated that $100 million per day for an entire four year term would only be 2% of one year’s budget. His conclusion was perfect:

OK, politics is theater. But you could argue that the president shouldn’t feed the bogus claim that we can close fiscal gaps by eliminating a bit of waste.

Tags fiscal restraint, money, New York Times, Obama

Local State

Convention Surprise

I attended the Davis County Republican Party organizing convention on Saturday. There was one very surprising outcome for me from attending. Senator Bob Bennett spoke at the conventions and by the end of his speech I realized that I could potentially vote for him in 2010 if he survives the Republican nominating convention and primary (if necessary) next year. I’m still absolutely sure that there must be at least half a dozen Republican politicians in this state that would be far better for the state than Senator Bennett can be he is still better than the majority of likely Democrat and third party candidates. Even if he were running unopposed I could not vote for our sitting senator at the Republican nominating convention but I may find that he is the best available option in the general election if he is the Republican nominee.

How’s that for a ringing endorsement.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, Davis County, parties, Republican, Utah

Local National State

Tea Party and Town Hall

The real effectiveness of the tea parties is not likely to be known for some time. Two days later various factions are still trying to sort out what actually happened and what it all means. I am encouraged by the prospects that it will turn out to be more than a short-lived release of frustration for political newcomers.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting with my congressional representative, Rob Bishop. I had heard about these meetings from various sources, but this is the first one to take place since I moved into the district. It was an interesting mix of support for Rep. Bishop and confrontation (speaking about the questions and comments from the audience).

One gentleman, who may well have been a tea party attendee, got up and expressed his frustrations at not having a political home after the supposedly conservative Republican party had forsaken the opportunity to promote conservative government. He asked how he could ever trust the party again. Rep. Bishop gave a very unsatisfactory answer (in my mind) that he would just have to sit back and wait. I later talked to that gentleman and invited him to visit my site – I hope he does so. My answer to the question is that those of us who really believe in conservative principles need to get active in the party and make it answerable to those principles rather than blindly following whoever is incumbent. (P.S. Rob Bishop is far from being the worst Republican Incumbent around these parts.) Sitting back and waiting is a great way to allow the status quo to become ever more entrenched in the party and in society.

I found various statements by Bishop which I agreed with and others that I did not agree with. The subject of earmarks came up multiple times and I found some of his answers insightful. For example, Rep. Bishop recognizes that earmarks are easily used as a distraction that diverts attention while the pile of money being spent continues to grow while the size of the pile is a larger problem than the earmarking process. He explained that earmarks are Congress setting priorities for appropriated money rather than the administration setting those priorities. That left me with two questions that I will demand answers on from my congressman.

If we get rid of earmarks won’t that allow us to focus on the size of the pile of money?
While I might prefer that Congress set the priorities for government appropriations rather than the administration, why should the priorities be set at the federal level at all? (except on truly federal priorities like defense spending) Wouldn’t it be better to just appropriate money to "transportation" and direct that 2% of the money goes to Utah, 5% to California, etc. then let the states and municipalities decide which projects (I-15 expansion, Mountain View Corridor, repaving existing streets, expansion of light rail, to name a few local options) deserve the transportation funding?

Tags change, District 1, money, questions, Rob Bishop