Shutdown Over Border Security?

[Terraceth]

Well one of the clearest failings of it is that it gives congress the power to un-declare a national emergency through a Joint Resolution... but a Joint Resolution needs to be signed by the President.

The National Emergency Act should have been written to say a Concurrent Resolution (both houses, but not President) could stop a national emergency not a Joint Resolution.

Congress can un-declare a national emergency without the president agreeing. Granted, it requires the somewhat hefty requirement of 2/3 of each house, but it can be done.

[carpedm9587]

Congress can un-declare a national emergency without the president agreeing. Granted, it requires the somewhat hefty requirement of 2/3 of each house, but it can be done.

Well - it can theoretically be done. In the current political climate, I give it a snowball's chance in death valley.

[Terraceth]

Well - it can theoretically be done. In the current political climate, I give it a snowball's chance in death valley.

I never said it was likely. But Starlight's post said (or at least appeared to say) that you needed the president to sign off on un-declaring the emergency, when that's not the case.

[Starlight]

Congress can un-declare a national emergency without the president agreeing. Granted, it requires the somewhat hefty requirement of 2/3 of each house, but it can be done.

A Joint Resolution requires presidential sign-off exactly like an ordinary bill, so if congress wanted to circumvent that requirement the ordinary veto-override would be required.

The writers of the national emergency act should have made it required a concurrent resolution not a joint resolution, thus removing the need for a presidential signature or veto-override.

[carpedm9587]

I never said it was likely. But Starlight's post said (or at least appeared to say) that you needed the president to sign off on un-declaring the emergency, when that's not the case.

Practically, it's the case. There is a slight chance there are enough votes to pass a bill, which the president would need to sign off on. There is almost no chance that such a bill could have enough votes to survive a veto.

[Cow Poke]

Practically, it's the case. There is a slight chance there are enough votes to pass a bill, which the president would need to sign off on. There is almost no chance that such a bill could have enough votes to survive a veto.

I've pretty much lost confidence in the voting process of Congress. It's so easy for back door deals to be made like "you Republicans go ahead and vote FOR this so you can be on record as having supported it, and I'll be the 'bad guy' and veto it to make sure it never becomes law".

Or the way they do the back room deals where a Democrat, for example, can vote for something which is against his own party platform, because he needs to "look good" in his conservative district, but he has the assurance that the majority of Democrats will vote against it.

Both parties play this game, allowing representatives to vote opposed to their party in the interest of their own reelection campaigns.

[carpedm9587]

I've pretty much lost confidence in the voting process of Congress. It's so easy for back door deals to be made like "you Republicans go ahead and vote FOR this so you can be on record as having supported it, and I'll be the 'bad guy' and veto it to make sure it never becomes law".

Or the way they do the back room deals where a Democrat, for example, can vote for something which is against his own party platform, because he needs to "look good" in his conservative district, but he has the assurance that the majority of Democrats will vote against it.

Both parties play this game, allowing representatives to vote opposed to their party in the interest of their own reelection campaigns.

Two words...


Term Limits!

[Cow Poke]

Two words...


Term Limits!

This, of course, is the ONLY issue on which you and I have EVER agreed, EVER!!!!





(ok, that may be somewhat inaccurate)

[carpedm9587]

(ok, that may be somewhat inaccurate)

ya think?

[Terraceth]

Have term limits actually been shown to fix these problems? I'm legitimately curious.

[Cow Poke]

Have term limits actually been shown to fix these problems? I'm legitimately curious.

Good question. I don't know how you would prove that.

Here, of all things, is the Brookings Institute giving Five reasons to oppose congressional term limits.

Might be worth its own thread.

[Starlight]

Have term limits actually been shown to fix these problems? I'm legitimately curious.

My country has no term limits, and I don't recall ever hearing anybody here even suggest them... and we nonetheless rank as a contender for best-functioning democracy in the world. (And of the top 10 democracies on that list, not a single one has term limits for their politicians - 2 of the 10 have a ceremonial position that is term limited but no term limits on the executive authority roles) So I am deeply skeptical that term limits would actually achieve the positive outcomes that their advocates in the US think they would.

In my own experience, the single biggest democratic improvement in my lifetime - by far and away - was when my country changed the voting system away from plurality voting. It resulted in us going from 2 parties to 7 parties in the course of one election to the next. It meant politicians could no longer say to their base "you have to hold your nose and vote for me, because I'm not as bad as the other guy" and instead they had to convince their base they were better than representatives of other parties on their own part of the political spectrum. Politicians had to compete to be the best, not compete to be the 2nd-worst.

In the US, the voting system for federal elections is controlled by individual states. Maine has recently adopted Ranked Choice voting (aka Instant Runoff), which is a very good method IMO (we use it here for local elections, but IMO it's better for national elections than local ones as it works better the more people know about more of the candidates and in local elections you often don't know much about a lot of the candidates). At a theoretical level, STAR voting seems to be about the best possible voting system, although as far as I am aware it hasn't been implemented anywhere in practice.

I believe changing the US voting systems to either of these methods would actually fix the problems that advocates of 'term limits' are seeking to address, but I doubt term limits would fix those same problems.

[Cow Poke]

My country has no term limits, and I don't recall ever hearing anybody here even suggest them... and we nonetheless rank as a contender for best-functioning democracy in the world. (And of the top 10 democracies on that list, not a single one has term limits for their politicians - 2 of the 10 have a ceremonial position that is term limited but no term limits on the executive authority roles) So I am deeply skeptical that term limits would actually achieve the positive outcomes that their advocates in the US think they would.

In my own experience, the single biggest democratic improvement in my lifetime - by far and away - was when my country changed the voting system away from plurality voting. It resulted in us going from 2 parties to 7 parties in the course of one election to the next. It meant politicians could no longer say to their base "you have to hold your nose and vote for me, because I'm not as bad as the other guy" and instead they had to convince their base they were better than representatives of other parties on their own part of the political spectrum. Politicians had to compete to be the best, not compete to be the 2nd-worst.

In the US, the voting system for federal elections is controlled by individual states. Maine has recently adopted Ranked Choice voting (aka Instant Runoff), which is a very good method IMO (we use it here for local elections, but IMO it's better for national elections than local ones as it works better the more people know about more of the candidates and in local elections you often don't know much about a lot of the candidates). At a theoretical level, STAR voting seems to be about the best possible voting system, although as far as I am aware it hasn't been implemented anywhere in practice.

I believe changing the US voting systems to either of these methods would actually fix the problems that advocates of 'term limits' are seeking to address, but I doubt term limits would fix those same problems.

Thank you for this incredibly uncharacteristic civil and reasoned response.

[Sparko]

A Joint Resolution requires presidential sign-off exactly like an ordinary bill, so if congress wanted to circumvent that requirement the ordinary veto-override would be required.

The writers of the national emergency act should have made it required a concurrent resolution not a joint resolution, thus removing the need for a presidential signature or veto-override.

That is just a way for congress to end a legitimate national emergency. If congress feels that the president instigated a fraudulent national emergency, they can end it with a 2/3 vote.

[Sparko]

Good question. I don't know how you would prove that.

Here, of all things, is the Brookings Institute giving Five reasons to oppose congressional term limits.

Might be worth its own thread.

Seems like you could use those same arguments against term limits for POTUS.

They have some merit but I think having term limits has more benefits than detriments. We could always make the terms limits longer, like no more than 6 terms for the house and 3 terms for Senate. That gives them enough time to become proficient and not have a constant batch of newbies trying to figure out what to do.