There are two broken systems that should make your eyes roll by now for different reasons.Call it big business or money that corrupts or controls the politics. It is an influence that grows with the growth of government and swelling numbers of low information voters. Voters still have to vote the politicians in, there are not actions for votes yet.
The other is the ubiquitous lack of compromise. How does it go? I want to feed the dog and you want to shoot it so lets just brake its leg. The less detrimental compromises of late are just a matter of how fast down the road not which road. This too is fixed by thoughtful voters if they can be resurrected.
The worrying brake is the one in the Constitution. The broader philosophical concept is that if all parties to an agreement decide that its not in their best interest any more than the agreement will not last. Legislative Democrats, even after losing the house and the senate still will not let Homeland Dept./amnesty funding bill come to a vote.
If it passed the executive branch will either veto it or decide that the immigration piece is self funding and there is no reason to do so.The legislative Democrats would get what they want and still allow the legislature to exercise its power. Even voted out of power the agreement, The Constitution, is no longer in their interest. They have decided that protecting the president and the progressive ideal is in their best interest.
The list of the executive doing what ever it wants is approaching endless including the obscenity of finally taking control of the internet. The current executives use for the agreement is clear, not that they have been over joyed by it in the past. That leaves the judiciary. The lower levels has been eaten by the same kind of sycophantic allegiance to the progressive/judicial realist ideals. They can very eloquently argue the living Constitution stick to get the result, even if the result is absurd.
The supreme court could knock this down in a term or two. I enjoy the though of progressive judges resigning en masse because the supreme court is "out of control" and there is "nothing they can do". In reality the judiciary moves to slow and narrowly to be an effective check. They have abdicated most of their power to congress. As long as the law says it okay then it is. There are few broad exceptions.
If you can get standing, if you can show damage, if you can sight a contradictory ruling in another court and give them a way to rule so it only applies to you the supreme court might take your case. It is not as bad as all that, that however is the prevailing trend. At that point any wider damage is usually done, adjusted for and accepted. This is what judicial realist / stare decisis at all costs gets you. Look like your doing something and protect your reputation. Agreement? What agreement?
Voters? What voters? They would have to know that it is happening. For that they have to know enough history to question, have the time too look or have a press that would at least report the facts. Is any of that possible? Large segments of the press, that is really the last guard of the system, have decided is better to go along with what you believe than doing their job and protecting the voters from their rulers. Its not a "broken system", it is an utterly destroyed agreement that one should fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment