2 ms·

What motivation would Congress possibly have to cooperate with an intentionally lame-duck President? The President is not able to unilaterally push through legi

by djur 11y ago

What motivation would Congress possibly have to cooperate with an intentionally lame-duck President? The President is not able to unilaterally push through legislation, and the idea of using a presidential election as a referendum is deeply flawed. However, his platform is admirable and I hope he draws more attention to electoral and campaign finance reform. Perhaps this movement could be redirected toward a constitutional amendment? That would be both more feasible and more effective (since it wouldn't be vulnerable to repeal at any time).

geofft 11y ago
I've always understood his position as implying that he'll pocket-veto anything else that passes his desk, and nothing interesting (like, oh, passing a budget) can get through today's Congress with a supermajority. It's in Congress's interest to get the stupid reform bill passed as quickly as possible so that a normal president can sign the rest of their bills. (Presumably this would be most effectively paired with an establishment candidate as VP who intends to run for re-election, so that he/she is answerable to the party bosses as usual.) And they have pretty good political cover for voting in favor of these bills: they can tell their constituents that it's all the fault of this ridiculous Harvard academic that the outgroup voted for. Rolling Stone did an interview where they asked him what happens if something goes wrong in the timeframe between when he takes office and when Congress realizes they should just pass the bills: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-presidential-hopeful-whod-quit-after-signing-a-single-law-20150819 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-president... RS: But what happens if you get elected president, and then — before your big bill gets passed — Iran goes crazy? Who, then, deals with the ayatollahs, or ISIS, or whatever the crisis is? LL: The person who is elected the president. That person has to convince the public that, in the case of something extraordinary, they could act as a kind of leader that the nation needs at the time of crisis. RS: You're saying you've got the qualifications to make those kinds of decisions in the interim? LL: Absolutely. If I'm not qualified to be that person, I shouldn't be president. I trust Lessig to be a reasonable-enough person that in the event of war or some other national emergency, he'll suspend his pocket-veto policy, and either act like a real president or resign unconditionally and let the VP take over. I agree with him that if you don't trust him to do that, you shouldn't vote for him.
- djur 11y ago
  This is all assuming that Congress wouldn't (with some justification, frankly) view the maneuver as an unconscionable assault on the constitutional separation of powers and adopt a total war stance against Lessig. I have no trouble believing that it would be easier to get a veto-proof majority of Congress to pass enough funding to keep the government running than it would to get a simple majority to pass Lessig's platform. You'd end up with only bills that represented the bipartisan "center" in DC, which means lots of money for the security state and cuts for social services. No appointed offices that would require congressional approval would be filled (and would Lessig even appoint anyone?). It could very well be the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War, if things went badly.

by djur 11y ago

geofft 11y ago

I've always understood his position as implying that he'll pocket-veto anything else that passes his desk, and nothing interesting (like, oh, passing a budget) can get through today's Congress with a supermajority. It's in Congress's interest to get the stupid reform bill passed as quickly as possible so that a normal president can sign the rest of their bills. (Presumably this would be most effectively paired with an establishment candidate as VP who intends to run for re-election, so that he/she is answerable to the party bosses as usual.) And they have pretty good political cover for voting in favor of these bills: they can tell their constituents that it's all the fault of this ridiculous Harvard academic that the outgroup voted for. Rolling Stone did an interview where they asked him what happens if something goes wrong in the timeframe between when he takes office and when Congress realizes they should just pass the bills: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-presidential-hopeful-whod-quit-after-signing-a-single-law-20150819 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-president... RS: But what happens if you get elected president, and then — before your big bill gets passed — Iran goes crazy? Who, then, deals with the ayatollahs, or ISIS, or whatever the crisis is? LL: The person who is elected the president. That person has to convince the public that, in the case of something extraordinary, they could act as a kind of leader that the nation needs at the time of crisis. RS: You're saying you've got the qualifications to make those kinds of decisions in the interim? LL: Absolutely. If I'm not qualified to be that person, I shouldn't be president. I trust Lessig to be a reasonable-enough person that in the event of war or some other national emergency, he'll suspend his pocket-veto policy, and either act like a real president or resign unconditionally and let the VP take over. I agree with him that if you don't trust him to do that, you shouldn't vote for him.

djur 11y ago
This is all assuming that Congress wouldn't (with some justification, frankly) view the maneuver as an unconscionable assault on the constitutional separation of powers and adopt a total war stance against Lessig. I have no trouble believing that it would be easier to get a veto-proof majority of Congress to pass enough funding to keep the government running than it would to get a simple majority to pass Lessig's platform. You'd end up with only bills that represented the bipartisan "center" in DC, which means lots of money for the security state and cuts for social services. No appointed offices that would require congressional approval would be filled (and would Lessig even appoint anyone?). It could very well be the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War, if things went badly.