Meaning of Supreme Court and ACA

While neither a landmark decision such as Brown nor one of establishing monumental precedent such as Marbury, once emotions concerning the specifics are dampened the ruling may mark and hence allow a focus point on a continuously expanding root of governmental ineffectiveness.  That root is the ever growing chasm between the two major parties.  Whether you agree or disagree with ACA and the decision, many will accept that certain aspects of the legislation are Republican in origin while others are Democrat.  Congresses past, however, tended to be divided among lines such as regional opinion and urban versus rural interests for example than merely party affiliations.  Even the old Solid South a few generations after Radical Reconstruction saw some Democratic and Republican compromises and actual partnerships in putting forward ideas into legislation.  Today, that is not the case and perhaps the only time in the US history where party affiliation meant as much was during the Presidential election of 1876.  Would any semblance of a Blue Dog have a chance to succeed?

Regardless of your own view of effectiveness or ineffectiveness, the current President is in a no win situation.  Unfortunately race is a factor on both sides with some touting the great change which would take place and others using it as the main factor for not supporting any opinions.  I’m pressed to think of one credible news source which has not used the Saint or Demon image in expectations.  Only my opinion, but the truth is that no individual in the White House could succeed at this point in time unless he or she was a part of either extreme.  Then, we would experience the reality of the misused terminology sprouted by media.  With teachers no longer being allowed to teach, the general public will become even more pliable clay to be molded to an “ism.”  Unlike some governors such as in Louisiana where the state constitution provides substantial powers, the office of President of the United States has more limitations.  Blaming the person at the top is the natural belief, but is it 100 percent accurate even 98 percent of the time?

The other day the major gripe in and about DC against Obama was over the “unconstitutional usage” of executive powers.  Today, Bobby Jindal squawked about how the President should use his powers to grant states immediate control to states and not wait until 2014 with the ACA provisions.  The number of filibusters and votes on cloture are significantly higher than that during any presidential administration.  The House has found it more important to debate a measure reaffirming the reaffirming of the affirmation that our motto is “In God We Trust” while bills concerning the economy were tabled.  Next month, we will see another symbolic passage, the 2nd passage, to repeal “Obamacare.”  Reform of the 1968 Flood Act, one of the few times this session where Republicans and Democrats were willing to work together in the Senate and create a bill assured near unanimous approval, has been stopped by one Senator’s insistence to add anti-abortion language.  Party loyalty to that person prevents cloture if the bill is pressed forward and the filibuster takes place on that amendment.

It might not be a landmark decision for a positive or a negative of magnitude to many events past.  It may, however, be the catalyst for those expressing neutrality to decide on a number courses.  Give up some freedoms and align with one extreme; give up others and align with the other extreme; or work for cohesiveness within that majority in the middle to limit the influence of either extreme.  History shows that a Compromise was worked out at the Wormley Hotel to decide an election and prevent a possible war, but it took some farmers understanding that regardless of race that they had more in common with each other, coal miners, and factory workers in urban areas to push forward some laws in Illinois and later write a platform in 1892 for many of the freedoms we have today which some believe date back to the Federalist Period.

Is there a solution?  Perhaps and perhaps not, but imagine a Congress where amendments offered on respective legislation were restricted to the issues addressed by the legislation.  Unconnected proposals would have to stand and be judged on their own merits and not as an all or nothing bundle.  As people in LA are well aware, the concept of a line item veto can be easily abused, so why not attempt to place the limitations on the written elements and not wait until the approval stage.

Advertisements