A simple question about the separation of powers, and the role of Congress:

[LWolf]

Some time in the last few weeks since election day, I heard part of an interview on NPR. The speaker was a republican, a former Congressman who served during Gingrich's tenure. I wasn't on the road long enough to get his name, although I'm sure I could google it; he's written a book.

I was on the road, listening to the radio, long enough to hear him say that, even though he's still a republican, he voted for Barack Obama. I heard him sadly evaluating his party's failures, among which was their support of corruption and bad policy, putting partisan power before common sense and the good of the nation.

He said that he thought this started under Gingrich, when republican reps were ordered to be cheerleaders; were, in the name of party unity, pressured to rubber stamp anything the administration did.

In the 16 days since Obama was elected, we've heard all kinds of people talking about the transition, his appointments, and the roles people are playing. I've heard people coming forward to trumpet some of the policy he campaigned on, and I've heard about the formation of groups whose goal is, according to the transition, is "to develop the priority policy proposals and plans from the Obama Campaign for action during the Obama-Biden Administration."

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/

So here is my question, perhaps not so simple after all:

What is the appropriate role for Congress, for Democrats in Congress specifically, under an Obama presidency?

Is it to be cheerleaders, and rush to rubber stamp his policies?

Or is it to maintain the separation of powers, to be the branch that makes the policy in the legislation that they write?

Does the legislative branch work FOR the executive branch? Or WITH the executive branch, to further, not the goals of the executive branch, but the good of the nation, of the PEOPLE, as a whole?

Who do they represent? The voters, or the executive branch?

What will the next Congress be? A separate branch that works WITH the executive branch, that the executive branch must also work WITH, or a rubber stamp?

I guess that's more than one question, and perhaps not so simple. I think these are timely questions, though.

Personally, I'd like to hear less about Obama putting together a team to make HIS policies happen, and more about Congress moving forward THEIR policies, OUR policies as our reps, under a friendlier administration.

To begin with, I want to see Congress push for the end of NCLB and all forms of high-stakes standardized testing, and to oppose the Obama plan for merit pay with every ounce of their being.

I'd also like to see them take HR 676 to him, whether or not it's part of "his" plan.

That's just me, of course. But I'm left wondering: for whom do my reps work? For me, and for my fellow voters and citizens, or for Obama?

I'm sure there will be a rich selection of responses to my questions; some patronizing, some flaming, and maybe even some with something substantive to say. I'm off to work this morning, so I'll check back to read through everything tonight.

:hi:

[LWolf]

1. Well,

the wealth of response leaves me to conclude that DU is no place to bring any discussion of policy, democracy, or state of the republic, lol. Like Gingrich's Congress, it's currently a cheerleading squad.

Exclusively.

[omega minimo]

2. Welcome to DU!!!

:yoiks: :bounce: :hide:

[LWolf]

7. .

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

13. .

:spray:

[PVnRT]

3. To make laws, advise and consent, ratify treaties, etc.

I'm not sure what your objection is. The President always has a voice in setting the agenda for Congress, and I fail to see why this is a bad thing because you don't like some of his stances. I doubt Obama is going to be pushing for merit pay on Day 1, there are a few more important fish to fry at the moment.

[LWolf]

9. My objection is this:

Congress legislates. The executive signs it into law, or sends it back.

The job of the executive branch isn't to determine policy. Of course, in reality, executives do. They come to office having promised the voters to do things that really belong to the legislative branch. They work with Congress, they help shape the direction that policy takes.

Still, it is not the job of Congress to adopt the policies of the executive. It's the job of Congress to represent the voters.

As far as merit pay goes, the current talk among educators is all about who is going to direct Education policy for Obama, and who is going to get key appointments. The names of those under consideration include people who support merit pay; as a matter of fact, some are suddenly "discovering" merit pay as if it were a fresh, new idea.

[cali]

11. so what do you think the role of president is? just to sit there passively

in the oval office? Sorry, the executive branch absolutely has a policy role. that's why the president has such leeway in appointments. And the role of legislators is to balance the opinion of the voters in their district/state, with their own supposedly informed judgment. Not to mention that the voters of every given district/state represent a wide variation of views.

And merit pay is the least of our worries, and Obama will not be focusing on it.

[LWolf]

15. ARE you "sorry" that the executive branch has a policy role?

I see that the role of Congress is to provide checks on the administration. To balance powers. Not to rubber stamp executive policy.

That's where the "coming together" should happen. The executive branch promotes policy. Congress decides what to pass, what to modify, what to reject. The executive can veto what they pass, but the executive branch doesn't write legislation. Policy that doesn't need new legislation to enact? The executive can certainly do that.

And merit pay is a primary concern for me, and for all of my colleagues. Not so important to those it won't directly effect, I suppose.

Until families start seeing how it negatively affects their kids' classrooms and schools, of course.

Why would educators NOT be paying attention to a new administration, to appointments and agendas for education, when it is central to our lives?

Are you saying that public education is somehow less than other key issues?

[slipslidingaway]

4. I certainly hope that Congress will not be cheerleaders, they

to provide a check and we need to remind them.

:hi:

[LWolf]

8. I get a couple of days off next week.

I plan to spend my time doing just that: communicating with Congress, and with the president-elect.

:hi:

[Bucky]

5. The executive is playing a far bigger role in national policy than the Framers expected

But that's not really "unconstitutional" since the Framers also make the Constitution explicitly flexible as to the specifics of how active the various branches should be. One reason policy-making power has shifted from the legislative branch to the executive is because the country is so damn big. Read your Montesquieu... large countries will always be less republican and more monarchial than small nations. So our elective monarch will naturally do more than intended originally, back when the whole nation numbered only 4 million souls.

Legislative bodies with more than 200 or so members really can't deliberate matters of too much complexity. This is why Alexander Hamilton said at the Convention of 1787: "Even 1000 Socrates would still be a mob."

So while your elected representative properly works for you, not for Obama, the hard fact is that a group of 537 lawyers and elective hacks is going to need somebody with stature and prestige to step in every once in a while and kick their butts in a progressive direction--it's just the dynamics of human crowd behavior.

[LWolf]

6. I really don't see anybody with stature and prestige

stepping up to kick anyone in a "progressive" direction, unless "progressive" is defined by the "progressive policy institute" and the DLC.

Regardless of the direction the executive might want to go, I believe it is still the job of Congress to provide checks, and to help balance the power.

[madokie]

10. Act like they are good honest men and women

and represent me when they are in washington, fuck the partisan bull

[Greyhound]

12. 676 in itself would go a long, long way to getting this nation headed toward sanity. n/t

[LWolf]

14. It would.

One single thing that would help the most people, and give the most, in my opinion, some reason to put up with all of the "bringing together" and rhetoric that will keep other needed changes minimal.