Skip to main content

Legislation's Death


Mary Leonard
Blog Post 1
In the New Yorker article, “Our Broken Constitution”, the author, Jeffrey Toobin, discusses professor Sanford Levinson’s opinion that Senate wields too much power and is a major fault of the Constitutions (Toobin). He claims that this power gives it the ability to constantly stifle the actions of the other branches of government. In the article, Levinson specifies instances where President Obama tried to pass different legislation through Congress in his second term but repeatedly got shot down, including attempts to reform gun control and immigration (Toobin). To him, the non-proportional Senate should not have the ability to do this (Toobin). Nonetheless, their right to deny legislation, especially that of which is proposed to them by the president, is granted under Article 1 of the constitution in the form of checks and balances. Through this doctrine, much of what the executive branch wants to do must be approved with the Senate’s consent. As free as the president may seem when it comes to making decisions and sending out executive orders, the purse used to fund these choices is controlled by Congress.
Levinson is not wrong with his claim that the vast majority of legislation should not expect to make it out of Congress alive and well. As shown in the table, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics created by Govtrack, no more than 11% of total legislation have become passed resolutions, with the majority of years average closer to about 5% (Govtrack). No one presidency and chamber, whether they be democratic or republican, holds a significant amount of sway over the other when it comes to the amount of legislation that gets passed (Govtrack). The numbers are consistent through the years, so is there truly a point to try to change it as Levinson has proposed.  It makes it even harder for Congress to agree on what to pass when it is split down the middle with the two parties on either side. President Trump has this issue right now making it difficult for him to pass some legislation. But the checks and balances go both ways, and the President can also prevent Congress from getting legislation passed through his tool of the veto.
Recently, in Kansas, there is a move to give Congress the upper hand over the President when it comes to making decisions about tariffs (Wise). Farmers there are unhappy that the tariffs have lasted so long and have resulted in a continuous negative impact on them (Wise). Kansas’s senator, Jerry Moran, and others have heard these complaints of their constituents and, as a proper delegate would do, have decided to take action (Wise). Many of those that are pushing for this reform are Republican, and have specified that it is not on attack on Trump, but just an attempt to rebalance the powers (Wise). The legislation proposed would make it so the president has to have Congressional approval before enacting tariffs (Wise). Along with this, instead of the Department of Commerce, the Defense Department would be the one that would have to ratify any tariffs that were placed (Wise).
This has the opposite issue that Obama had. The Journal claims that this legislation won’t get very far because “Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has refused to bring bills to the floor without some certainty that Mr. Trump would sign them” (Wise). This, in an essence, contradicts Levinson’s notions that all legislation dies because of Senate. It is very dependent on who’s in control of the Senate and the House, who the President is at the time, and what the legislation entails.
This bill, although supported by some representatives from both parties, will struggle to make it all the way through the process. Due to the fact that this bill gives Congress more power, it might just make its way through that part of the process, yet, once it reaches the president, it is sure to be vetoed and sent right back to where it came from. Because the bill must be voted on in the Democratic controlled House, then the Republican controlled Senate, and then lastly signed by the President, the probability of its demise is extremely high. This process does indeed make it difficult for bills to get through, however, those that do would have the support from the two different parties, which is important and more representative of the people’s desires.














Bibliography
Govtrack. January 3, 2019. “Statistics and Historical Comparison.” Date Accessed, September
18, 2019. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

Toobin, Jeffrey. December 1, 2013. The New Yorker. “Our Broken Constitution.” Date
Accessed, September 18, 2019. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/our-broken-constitution

Wise, Lindsay. September 15, 2019. The Wall Street Journal. “Lawmakers Make Long-Shot Bid
to Check Presidential Tariff Powers.” Date Accessed, September 18, 2019. https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-make-long-shot-bid-to-check-presidential-tariff-powers-11568571897?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=8

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more