Who makes Law?

[96Qowner]

When you talk politics with people, you get lots of fun jabs and toss-off lines going back and forth, and I think we'd all have to admit that it's just part of the way it goes. Sometimes it's fun - sometimes it's just too much drama. Whatever.

But it's important to keep some things straight. It's common practice to attribute legislation to a President, even though it's Congress that makes law. It makes things simple for everyone when you can pin it on just one guy. And most of the time, it's somewhat valid. The President is, after all, the supposed leader of the Party, and has a legislative agenda of his own. But that's his only power. He can request, cajole, threaten, betray, whatever he has the power to do, but he has no legal standing. He can either accept the legislation that Congress passes or he can veto it. Period.

Usually, a President comes to power with a rich background in government. He has held positions of power before. He knows who the players are and he knows how to move them. People in power know him and owe him favors. They also know who his friends are and they know that those friends can ruin their lives if they wish to. The people who actually run the government, the bureaucrats, were there before he came and will be there after he leaves - they don't actually have to do what he wants - they only have to wait out the 4 years.

There's less power in the Presidency than people think. It's a leadership position. The President serves as the leader of the government. He operates the government according to the rules set forth by Congress, and he represents the government internationally, both politically and militarily.

So we can talk about Obama this and Obama that, as long as we all understand that it's actually Pelosi/Reid this and that. Obama hasn't actually had much to do with it. His job was to represent, and I'm not sure how much credit anyone wants to give him for that stellar job. Majorities dislike almost everything Pelosi and Reid did.

[dusred]

IT WAS BUSH!

On a serious note: True. But Obama influences the laws and bills passed. . . thus "Obamacare" ect.

[IBCoupe]

The Executive is designed to be the weakest of the three branches, true. But it's the most visible. And, of any national post, the President is the one with the most sway over public opinion.

While, in Constitutional theory, you're right that Congress doesn't need the President to do anything but sign the bill, in practice, it doesn't appear to work out that way. The President has too much at stake in what Congress does, and Congress would like the President to not only pass the bill but come out on its side to sell it to the public that both sides benefit from coordinating their efforts.

That said, it's not like the President has no power over Congress beyond the veto. He does command the administrative agencies, and there's no reason to suppose that those can't be aimed at an individual Congressman's district to get him in line. Often, though, I imagine that a photo-op with the President (or the threat of a photo-op, as the case may be) helps enough people with their reelection that he doesn't have to stoop to legally-questionable means.

Long story short: technically you're right, but you appear to ignore how the real world can work.

[themadscientist]

That's why the upcoming mid-terms are so important.

[stebo0728]

I have a better question.

Who Reads Law?

[96Qowner]

I have a better question.

Who Reads Law?

Yes, good question. I was having this discussion with a friend yesterday and he reminded me that it's actually policy organizations that write law.

The average citizen understands that they vote for and elect an official that will represent them in some form or fashion in their given government. What this citizen does not understand is that there is a staff that supports this elected official in capacities far above and beyond what is normally associated with “politics.” These staff members work to research, craft, and write pieces of legislation in hopes that they will become law. Policy professionals spend their days either writing new policy or reviewing and editing the current policy on the books. These legislative aides provide the backbone of the government while the politicians provide the face to the government. In essence, the aides are the policy while the politicians are the politics. Both are essential but both are situated in different worlds and do not pretend to enter into each others worlds until necessary.

http://iufberlinen.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... overnment/

Most politicians aren't even involved in writing law. This is how they represent us? I say if a politician can't take the time to read the legislation he's voting on, it's time to elect a different politician. Of course, one must be reasonable. I don't expect a politician to know every clause in the law, but he's responsible for what he votes on.

On a side note: If Congressional staff and policy think tanks write law, shouldn't we be leery of term limits? Wouldn't that make the politicians into mere spokesmen? Politicians come and go, but staff and think tanks remain.

[IBCoupe]

I don't see that as a reason to get rid of term limits. Getting rid of term limits would only make the problem worse. Then you have special interests that never go away and politicans that never go away, either.

What needs to be resolved are the ties from one politician to another - when the special interest has an ear in the incoming politician because he had an ear in the outgoing politician, we have a minor problem.

But the fact that special interests don't go away doesn't bother me, by itself. Neither do individual states, or families, or national parks.

[mattblancarte]

If Congressional staff and policy think tanks write law, shouldn't we be leery of term limits? Wouldn't that make the politicians into mere spokesmen? Politicians come and go, but staff and think tanks remain.

If anything, I'd like to see term limits reduced to a maximum of 1.

Agree with IB about part of the problem being the invisible (or semi-visible) hand of lobbying.

[HashiriyaS14]

What needs to be resolved are the ties from one politician to another - when the special interest has an ear in the incoming politician because he had an ear in the outgoing politician, we have a minor problem.

This has nothing to do with it. Special interests have power because of their ability to donate to campaigns.

We should really limit the donation from ANY party to $250 per election, be it a corporation, nonprofit, or individual. You have to take the money out of politics or you're never going to get over special interest influence.

[mattblancarte]

I'd like to see jail sentences for politicians who break a lobby-limit law, too. A limit like hash has proposed is exactly what I'm talking about.

[96Qowner]

It's worse than you realize - it's those very special interests that actually write the law.

If we prevent politicians from gaining power within the bureaucracy by limiting the time they can serve, then we lose all influence over those special interests, don't we? A politician becomes a lame duck as soon as he's elected to his final term, so that term is shot. His first term will be relatively powerless until the special interests confirm that he needs to be respected. What does that leave?

Term limits sound like a good idea, but after you consider the ramifications, it looks a lot less attractive. If we're worried about incumbent politicians having an unfair advantage, I say work on the primary and election process. Actually, this year should put the term limits debate on the back burner. Throwing the bums out just doesn't seem to be a problem this time. Politicians are being held accountable for the legislation they've signed. Finally.

[stebo0728]

Part of the problem is the way bills get treated like trolley cars. Its like one or 2 major bills get working on per session, and they are trolley cars, and they try to get as many issues riding in those "trolley cars" as they can. Thats how you end up with bills like this healthcare bill, that are umpteengillion pages long, and now thats its passed, all kinds of "passengers" are starting to get out, some real creepy ones too, like this 1099 deal. No way that guy woulda got a ride one his own! Do I have the answer? No not nearly, but somehow we have GOT to stop cramming anything and everything into these bills. Each point added becomes a leverage point either for the proponents or opponents of the bill. Why couldnt the healthcare bill just deal with healthcare? And believe me I know this current bunch in no way invented this process, its been a problem for decades. One thing that could help? Line item veto. The scalpel that cuts the sharpest and truest. If a bill could go through, but with certain items denied, we might be able to deal with things a little better. BUT really, all the things shouldnt get treated as one yes or no vote anyway. I dont necessarily have a problem with ANYONE crafting a bill, hell even Diamond could write a bill as far as Im concerned, but I do have a real problem with any bill, regardless of its author, being passes blindly without even being read. I agree we shouldnt necessarily require that the congressman recite the bill, but at least have a working knowledge of it? And not the aids either, the actual congressman should have a working knowledge of the bill. Is that really too much to ask?

[IBCoupe]

I can't help but wonder if that symptom might go away if there was any cooperation on the floor to get those issues worked out in the proper way.

[themadscientist]

[IBCoupe]

How did we go that long without that?

[themadscientist]

People were talking all serious and stuff. I took care of that fer ya!

[heliochrome85]

HA, limit campaign contributions..
HA
yeah, not with Citizens United on the books.