4 ms·

Congress honestly seems to have completely shut down as a body able to accomplish anything. The president is all we have

gottorf 2y ago
This is a feature of the US constitutional system, not a bug. It's designed such that things move very, very slowly. If Congress isn't able to pass laws, it probably reflects a division in how the voting populace feels about the subject of such laws. The president may be all we have, but he is constitutionally forbidden from acting like a king. Though, of course, that hasn't stopped presidents from trying.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  “ it probably reflects a division in how the voting populace feels about the subject of such laws.” I don’t think that’s correct. There is way too much propaganda coming from the parties to think that voters have made up their minds based on the facts. It’s actually quite hard to get the facts because the media is mostly reporting politics like they report a football match.
- Alupis 2y ago
  100% Correct. People all too often look at Congress and say "gee, they aren't passing all the things I want them to do, therefore Congress must be broken!" This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. As you said, inaction == lack of consensus. Imaging running a country where significant ways of life (influenced by laws) change willy-nilly depending on the flavor of the day? The legal whiplash would be absurd. So, people often look to the president as some sort of king analog, and demand action via Executive Order - then cry foul when the next president undoes the previous one's EO's... it's lunacy and not a good way to run a society.
  - iends 2y ago
    > This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. Don't really think so. The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders and clearly swayed the power balance back towards rural areas, even though they have equal representation in the senate.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        >> This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. >The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders Stop playing dumb. The contradiction with your initial assertion was clearly articulated. Try addressing it instead of baiting other posters.
        Alupis 2y ago
        Posting this demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how the US government works - and a gross misunderstanding of the founding of the US and the framer's intentions. The "And?" was a prompt for the poster to elaborate on their uninformed view. You apparently saw fit to double-down on expressing your lack of understanding as well... Perhaps you would like to take a swing at explaining how Congress passing a law somehow "subverts" Congress?
    - quartesixte 2y ago
      Oh man this and the 17th Amendment I think created a serious flaw to the framers' original designs. But people look at me crazy when I say that the 17th Amendment probably was a mistake and the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act a serious mistake to our democracy.

gottorf 2y ago

This is a feature of the US constitutional system, not a bug. It's designed such that things move very, very slowly. If Congress isn't able to pass laws, it probably reflects a division in how the voting populace feels about the subject of such laws. The president may be all we have, but he is constitutionally forbidden from acting like a king. Though, of course, that hasn't stopped presidents from trying.

rqtwteye 2y ago
“ it probably reflects a division in how the voting populace feels about the subject of such laws.” I don’t think that’s correct. There is way too much propaganda coming from the parties to think that voters have made up their minds based on the facts. It’s actually quite hard to get the facts because the media is mostly reporting politics like they report a football match.
Alupis 2y ago
100% Correct. People all too often look at Congress and say "gee, they aren't passing all the things I want them to do, therefore Congress must be broken!" This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. As you said, inaction == lack of consensus. Imaging running a country where significant ways of life (influenced by laws) change willy-nilly depending on the flavor of the day? The legal whiplash would be absurd. So, people often look to the president as some sort of king analog, and demand action via Executive Order - then cry foul when the next president undoes the previous one's EO's... it's lunacy and not a good way to run a society.
- iends 2y ago
  > This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. Don't really think so. The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders and clearly swayed the power balance back towards rural areas, even though they have equal representation in the senate.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      >> This fails to realize Congress works entirely the way it was designed. >The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act subverted the intentions of the founders Stop playing dumb. The contradiction with your initial assertion was clearly articulated. Try addressing it instead of baiting other posters.
      - Alupis 2y ago
        Posting this demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how the US government works - and a gross misunderstanding of the founding of the US and the framer's intentions. The "And?" was a prompt for the poster to elaborate on their uninformed view. You apparently saw fit to double-down on expressing your lack of understanding as well... Perhaps you would like to take a swing at explaining how Congress passing a law somehow "subverts" Congress?
  - quartesixte 2y ago
    Oh man this and the 17th Amendment I think created a serious flaw to the framers' original designs. But people look at me crazy when I say that the 17th Amendment probably was a mistake and the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act a serious mistake to our democracy.