SONICFROG DOT NET

Points To Ponder- Desertion… As A Weapon?

Yes… Wisconsin again… And now, Indiana apparently.

If this trend grows, what should be done about the practice of using desertion as a political weapon.

I was thinking, should the Republicans pass a law making it illegal for legislators to skip town in order to avoid a vote? Think about it. Could such a law even be enforced? And what if the shoe was on the other foot? For Conservatives who are vilifying Democrats, if the Republicans found themselves in the same type of powerless minority, and the Dems were proposing huge tax increases, wouldn’t you support the Conservatives using the same action to try and forestall the action? Here in California, the Republicans have in years past had just enough power to deny the Democrats carte blanche power to do just that without fleeing the state. But I’m certain that if it came to that, those Conservatives who fled the state would, at lest here in the more conservative San Joaquin Valley, would be look upon as heroes.

You may not be able to pass a law to make it illegal, or enforce it, BUT there are examples of structural changes made to the government system to squash the ability of political factions from grinding the legislative process to a halt. One example for this is the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As laid out in the original document, Senators were not chosen via popular vote, but were appointed to serve by the State Legislators. From the 1820’s to the turn of the next century, some states with politically divided legislatures had a hard time deciding and resolving Senatorial appointments in a timely fashion, resulting in vacancies in the U.S. Senate. At one point, Delaware, due to political squabbles, did not even have a seated Senator for four years! This made it difficult for the Senate to conduct business, and many state citizens did not appreciate having no representation in that body. Plus, Senators of the day tended to be chosen based on political patronage and were often corrupt – OK, more corrupt than we generally see in our present day candidates. Allowing the public to vote for their Senators was seen as a check to clean things up.

More 17th Amendment info here.

PS. Interestingly enough, as you see in the wiki on the 17th Amendment, Wisconsin played a large role in the impetus to pass the amendment. Also, there is a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment. Here is the argument for doing so.  The points made are interesting, but, in my opinion flawed. There is no evidence that we would not see a return of the same types of problems that created the impetus to amend the Constitution (not an easy thing to do), The author writes this:

…a U.S. Senate representing the state governments would likely mean the end of many of the federal mandates and programs that currently stifle policy innovation, mandate uniformity, and strangle budgets in states,

That might be the case. But, as we see over and over again, politicians tend not to care whether something is paid for or not, and isn’t one of the complains against Federal judges, EPA officials and the Obama Czars a concern that they are appointees to their position and NOT voted into office by their constituents?

…indirect elections generally result in well qualified candidates filling the positions in question. This is as true of U.S. Supreme Court justices chosen by the president as it was of U.S. senators chosen by state legislatures. It is no accident that the preeminent U.S. senators in our history – e.g., Randolph, Calhoun, Clay, Webster, etc. – all appeared prior to the 17th, while demagogues like Sen. Schumer and hollow men like Sens. Bayh and Frist have filled the Senate after its ratification.

Concerning Randolph, Calhoun, Clay, Webster, etc…. Each of those Senators were reviled by their opposition in their day. The reason why they are now revered today is because they were larger than life, and more importantly, took stands on vital issues of great concern – slavery, for one – that modern Senators just don’t have to deal with. Plus, maybe just as important, all of these revered Senators were great orators and could speak for hours on end. I can’t think of a single example of any Senator in the last 40 years who has shown the ability to do that. But that is more a product of the communication age than of the quality of the Senators, as TV and radio has reduced policy advocacy to mere sound bites, and issues are on the whole so much more complicated in our modern world, i doubt that even those great Senators would be able to shine under these circumstances.