Offbeat Congress Should Take Back Its Power And Start Doing Its Job

17:55  14 june  2018
17:55  14 june  2018 Source:

Gingrich says Trump pardoning himself would be "arrogant statement of power"

  Gingrich says Trump pardoning himself would be A self-pardon "would lead to a reaction in the Congress that would be devastating," former House speaker tells CBS"I don't think he can pardon himself, that would lead to a reaction in the Congress that would be devastating," Gingrich said.

Russia does not want a confrontation over U.S. missiles falling on its Syrian ally. Bibi Netanyahu, after a call from Obama, is pushing Congress to back a U.S. strike on Syria. We are taking back from you the war powers the Fathers gave us.

its job with regard to sending our service men and women into battle. Last week, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) saying, "This is something where Congress has collectively avoided taking responsibility for years."

Congress Should Take Back Its Power And Start Doing Its Job© The Federalist Congress Should Take Back Its Power And Start Doing Its Job

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Procedural arguments are extraordinarily boring and completely ineffective and no one cares about them. I get it. “Process” lacks the kind of moral, cultural, or ideological appeal that animates Americans. No politician has ever won a modern election appealing to the voter’s love of neutral principles, and no one ever will.

It’s likely, in fact, that Barack Obama’s eight years have irreparably damaged process arguments. You can’t really expect the opposition party to play by the old rules once you’ve nuked them. And without fail, partisans convince themselves they’re going to be in power forever. They won’t be. The GOP won’t be either.

Dem wins primary in bid to become first Native American congresswoman

  Dem wins primary in bid to become first Native American congresswoman Former state Democratic Party leader Debra Haaland won the Democratic primary in New Mexico's 1st Congressional District Tuesday night in her bid to become the first-ever Native American woman to serve in Congress. The Associated Press called the race for Haaland, who defeated a crowded field of candidates to secure the Democratic nomination. She will now face former state Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones (R) and Libertarian candidate Lloyd Princeton in November.There are currently two Native American members of Congress, but both are men. Haaland is a member of the Pueblo of Laguna tribe.

While the tit-for-tat plays out, Congress should take the opportunity to reassert its constitutional authority to regulate foreign trade. Lawmakers should wrest back the constitutional authority they have abdicated. JOHANNES EISELE/AFP/Getty Images.

It ’ s nice to see the discussion going on, but the entire debate is another example of Congress delegating power and not doing its job . Ryan’s complaints about tariffs aside, he still believes in surgical action (whatever that means) against China.

So perhaps it’s better to start thinking about “norms” -- boy, that word has been ruined forever -- not as a set of cherished republican principles, but rather a practical way to crush the future dreams of your most-hated political rivals. Think of process as a deterrence.

Despite Democrats demanding that Congress limit the proper executive powers of Donald Trump, both parties can aim to reestablish checks and balances that have been piddled away over the past six decades so they can reassert their proper role in American governance.

One of those powers is trade. During a long career in Washington, Sen. James Inhofe has voted for almost every major international trade agreement, and against renewing a "fast track" presidential trade authority when Bill Clinton was in the White House. This week he blocked an amendment that would have reigned in executive power on trade. Inhofe claims it would have interfered with a defense bill. Maybe that’s the case. But it seems unlikely.

Will Paul Ryan's retirement be a chance to change the House?

  Will Paul Ryan's retirement be a chance to change the House? A bipartisan group is urging lawmakers to seize on Speaker Paul Ryan's upcoming retirement from the House as a chance at meaningful changes.It's a recipe for upheaval, though one outside group sees a once-in-a-generation opportunity for lawmakers to overhaul their rules and put Congress on a more cooperative footing.

Congress is not trying to take its authority back from the president. Instead, our senators and congressmen are saying: “We have no plans to use our authority, but we really do not want the president doing anything with it, either.”

Congress failed to tackle this executive branch excursion into its power . Congress needs to get back in the practice of exerting its constitutional authority. This resolution addresses a bipartisan problem and should have bipartisan support.

The Constitution says Congress holds the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” but the president is using a 1962 law that allows him to impose tariffs on things such as steel imports, because apparently making washing machines more expensive is in the national interest.

Most senators are hesitant to undermine their party’s president. Certainly this isn’t a new arrangement. But the erstwhile free traders of the GOP should imagine all the damage a progressive like Bernie Sanders could do with broad “national security” exceptions on trade.

The other power is that of treaties. If the North Korean denuclearization deal is as historic, genuine, and vital as Trump claims it will be, he has a responsibility to bring the final deal to Congress. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says there’s “precedent” for administrations to make deals without the Senate, “but I do believe they'll need to come to Congress in some form.” The precedent he’s talking about is the Obama administration and its habit of circumventing the Constitution.

Sessions explains to Congress rationale for not defending ObamaCare

  Sessions explains to Congress rationale for not defending ObamaCare <p>Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday defending the Department of Justice's (DOJ) rationale for not defending the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.</p>"As you know, the Executive Branch has a longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," Sessions wrote.

Farm Workers Are Under Attack For Doing a Job that Other Americans Won’t. By now, through its inaction, the legislative branch has, in fact, surrendered the final remnant of authority it retained on matters relating to whether, when, against whom and for what purpose the United States should go to

Congress has done nothing. Yet Congress ’ abdication of its constitutional authority and duty to declare war did not begin with a President run amok. I propose Congress take back its power .

We were told that Obama's Paris agreement on climate was the most crucial international deal ever known to mankind -- you’ll remember the world is now in imminent peril because we exited -- yet it wasn’t important enough to be put through the traditional checks and balances of American governance. Global warming, claimed Obama at the time, “does not pause for partisan gridlock.”

The former president used the same argument for a number of his celebrated initiatives, including his creation of immigration law, of Obamacare subsidies, and of de facto international treaties. Should Trump, who can make a similar claim about gridlock -- and does -- implement his own Congress-free trade and immigration policies? If you believe tough political realities give you license to ignore process, then we can look forward to four-year intervals of perpetual governing chaos, which probably doesn’t comport with the Founders' vision for a stable nation.

Take Obama’s Iran deal, which was not only propelled by a vast number of lies, it was brittle and unsustainable because he undertook it unilaterally. These factors are all related. It’s unlikely such a deal could have survived an open debate in Congress. The Iran deal would have needed genuine consensus to pass, and it would have been placed under a scrutiny the media refused to give it.

Of course, all of this isn’t the executive branch’s fault. Congress happily abdicates its responsibility on matters of war and trade all the time. The Obama administration could use the military in Libya and Syria (where the Trump administration followed suit) without proper authorization because a pliant Congress wants no part in a contentious and politically hazardous debate over war.

But the deal with North Korea needs a debate. If the parameters are really going to end a long-simmering and dangerous conflict, Congress can both solidify the agreement for the long term and ensure that it isn’t, like the Iran deal, the executive branch empowering a tyrannical state for little in return. These actions need oversight. Without it, we will continue to see the political instability that undermines American governance.

Advocacy group seeks key pledges from next Speaker .
A bipartisan advocacy group is launching an ambitious effort to overhaul how the House conducts legislative business, with the goal of breaking through the partisan gridlock that has long paralyzed Congress. The organization, No Labels, will kick off discussions about the so-called Speaker's Project on Thursday during a luncheon at the Library of Congress featuring several members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. Former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) will also be in attendance.


—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

This is interesting!