MASTERING THE SENATE
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, April 24, 2003 |
John Fund thinks President Bush must get a grip on the Senate to make it do his bidding on domestic issues. While I agree with his contention that Bill Frist blew it in his handling of the tax cut, I am not sure what it is the president is supposed to do about these things. The Republicans have a one seat majority and many of the “Republicans” in the Senate are, at best, nominal. Olympia Snowe has much more power over GWB than vice versa, as the Jim Jeffords fiasco of 2001 proved. Senators, especially those popular in their state, are simply not beholden to presidents, even of their own party. It’s this little thing I like to call “separation of powers.”
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
Indeed, the very idea that any president can "get a grip" on either chamber of congress is a tad silly.
Now that's funny, because what seems to go under the radar is CONGRESS's own incursion of separation of powers by undermining presidential power, like oh say, refusing to confirm his judicial nominations by threatening an unconstitutional filibuster.
I don't think it's gone under the radar screen; indeed, I reference it in most post and the post to which I link.
While I think the filibuster is unconstitutional, since it creates a need for a supermajority in cases other than the handful specified in the Constitution, it is a time-honored tradition that has not been overruled by any court that I'm aware of.
---
Comments are Closed
