Broken Military; Broken Government; Broken Society

If you've wondered why neither the Administration or Congress can seem to resolve pressing national issues such as immigration, the Iraq War, Social Security; Health Care; Global Warming; Energy Policy, etc., watch CSPAN for a week.

This morning's fare was typical. I began by watching the Senate vote on cloture on the "Comprehensive Immigration Bill." It failed. But rather than continue debate in hopes of reaching additional compromises which might result in a passable bill, Majority Leader Reid simply took it off the table. Thus, one of the most pressing issues facing the country today, from a national security perspective, has been removed from the Senate agenda, as a result of both Parties caving in to their respective special interests. Fundamentally, this means that both Democrats and Republicans who supported the Bill failed the country and that rather than return to their special interest constituencies and tell them that compromise was necessary for the sake of national security, have instead said, in effect: "Sorry, we couldn't get it passed the way you wanted it, but we did manage to kill it.

In regard to Congress, we have two courses open: continue to bombard our representatives with demands that these issues be resolved, even it means foregoing their summer break (aren't we asking the Iraqi Parliament to do the same?) and/or to vote all of them out in the next election. I recommend both.

In regard to Bush, the defeat of the "comprehensive bill," in no way relieves him of his responsibility to begin immediately to enforce the law. I should think that in view of the "War on Terror," that an unwillingness on his part to control our borders and begin registering the 12 - 20 million undocumented aliens now present, represents definite grounds for impeachment.

By failing to settle for anything less than comprehensive, the President is essentially holding national security hostage to a suitable "guest workers" program acceptable to business interests. If the President wants to continue being the "Chief Decider," now is the time for him to place national security above and beyond all other aspects of a new immigration policy.

I have no hard and fast agenda for how we resolve future immigration policy - i.e. who and how many people are approved for future immigration. Nor, do have any agenda for how the 12-20 million undocumented illegals are handled, but I do feel strongly that in the interests of all of us, we must begin immediately to control the borders by whatever means necessary and to begin the documentation of the undocumented. This isn't about economics; its about survival.

If the President fails to move now on these issues, he should be impeached; if he fails to move now, is not impeached and a terrorist attack on this country occurs through a lack of border enforcement and/or because of "undocumented persons," then he must not only be impeached, but held criminally negligent.

Following this morning's vote, the Senate moved on to other issues of pressing national concern: Senator Robert Byrd spoke for twenty minutes telling the Senate how he still felt healthy enough to carry out his senatorial responsibilities at his advanced age. This was followed by Senator Ted Stevens, taking up another 20-30 minutes in calling for a resolution recognizing the heroism of one of his constituents for his actions on December 7, 1941 during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

At that point, I switched to the House of Representatives, to find them debating - for the better part of one hour - over a $127,000 earmark for an economic development project in North Carolina. This debate enlightened me on an apparently excellent book entitled "The Perfect Christmas Tree." The book apparently inspired the development project.

If Congress was a revolutionary group, the revolution would fail; if it were a corporation board, the corporation would fail. Indeed, the majority of their time seems dedicated to passing nonsensical resolutions and standing around their respective chambers waiting for quorum calls.
The leadership vaccum is enormous and apparent.

The Bloomberg departure from the Republican Party and his annoucement as an "Independent," may be the handwriting on the wall. Whatever his politics, Bloomberg is not a dumb guy and his change may be the symbolic move annoucing the failure of our evolved Party system. More should and may follow suit. If the Parties continue to allow themselves to be driven by their respective special interests and ideolouges, then it is up to the majority of us, in the middle and looking for concrete solutions to national problems to go our own way and desert both.

A Note on the Vice Presidency and it's Constitutional role in government.

The fleeting claim of the Vice President's Office that it is neither a member of the Executive or Legislative Branches brings up an interesting point. The brillance of our Constitution, to me, has always been it's extreme concern with "balancing powers." The founders put this thing together prior to the rise of political parties (which began, in earnest, with Jacksoniam Democracy, in the early 1820's).

Initially, the Vice President was not voted upon separately from the President. Rather, the electors simply voted for a President. The person who received the most votes became President; the person receiving the second most votes became Vice President. The Constitution does not actually place the Vice President in the Executive Branch. It merely says that should something happen to the President, the Vice President will take the President's place. Obviously, this role does not mandate that the Vice Presidency be located within the Executive Branch. Beyond this "anticipated" responsibility, the Vice President has only one other duty and its a duty that very clearly places the office in the Legislative Branch of government; the duty to preside over the Senate, as President, and to vote in case of a tie.

It occurs to me that this arrangement may have been another founding father means of inserting "checks and balances." Without Parties, the founders expected the President would be the most respected, prominent, and liked person within the country (who was also willing to "run"). That person would become President and the second most respected, prominent and liked person, who might well hold contrary opinions, would become Vice President. Since, it would be unreasonable to place this person in the same branch as his/her opponent and directly "under" the President, the role of President of the Senate was created as sort of a "parking spot."

At the same time, originally, the Senate was not popularly elected, but rather through the respective state legislatures. The Senate was essentially our counterpart to the British House of Lords and represenative of the collective "establishment" of the times. People who tended to represent "state interests" rather than popular interests and therein the founders wisely again divided power by giving the power of originating money appropriations to the "People's Chamber," the House of Representatives.

Thus, the founders may have intended both the Vice President and the Senate to fullfill the role of "shawdow government" and a means of diffusing political differences, without excluding the minority (minority meaning the "establishment," who held more power, but fewer in number).

The rise of Parties and the popular election of the President and Senate, while more "democratic," may have destroyed the original intent.

Ah...just a thought. Doubt we'll go back to the original intent, but it might be a means of reforming a failed Party system and bringing more honesty to political debate.

I do, however, think that one may easily overdo "original intent." It strikes me that the founders themselves often reached Consitutional compromises, not in some carefully thought out and analytical way to ensure "checks and balances," but simply to "get on with it." Most apparently felt they'd overstayed their Philadelphia welcome, complained of the length of the Convention in the hot weather and wanted to get back to their more personally comfortable lives.

Hmmm? Speaking of which...back to CSPAN.