The House Stands for Law and Liberty

It's like Congress went poking into the sides of a sofa and found the Constitution that people once talked about. 2011 is America's Josiah moment (2 Chronicles 34), if I may put it that way.

George Will celebrates this in his column, "A Congress that Reasserts Its Power" (Washington Post, January 16, 2011).

The eclipse of Congress by the executive branch and other agencies is Congress's fault. It is the result of lazy legislating and lax oversight. Too many "laws" actually are little more than pious sentiments endorsing social goals - environmental, educational, etc. - the meanings of which are later defined by executive-branch rule-making. In creating faux laws, the national legislature often creates legislators in the executive branch, making a mockery of the separation of powers. And Congress makes a mockery of itself when the Federal Register, a compilation of the regulatory state's activities, is a more important guide to governance than the Congressional Record.

Unfortunately, courts long ago made clear that they will not seriously inhibit Congress's scandalous delegation of its lawmaking function to others. So Congress should stop whining about the actions of the EPA (emissions controls), the FCC ("net neutrality"), the Interior Department (reclassifications of public lands) and other agencies and should start rereading Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." 

Barney Frank's view is that Congress should do whatever it darn well pleases, and if the courts have a problem with it, they'll say something. But Will sees the courts, those guardians of the tablets, as having failed in their duties.

Regarding the relevance of the Constitution, you must remember this: Rep. Nancy Pelosi, asked about the constitutionality of the health-care legislation - a subject now being seriously litigated - said, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She was serious. She seriously cannot comprehend that anyone seriously thinks James Madison was serious when he wrote (Federalist 45), "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." Unfortunately, for too long too many supine courts have flinched from enforcing the doctrine of enumerated powers, and too many Congresses have enjoyed emancipation from that doctrine. So restraint by the judiciary must be replaced by congressional self-restraint. 

This may sound strange, but it looks like it is Congress to the rescue for liberty. Interesting, isn't it, that it is never the Senate to the rescue. In 1994 and 2010, it was the lower house of the popular branch.

The Constitution. A Novel Idea.

Cato's Roger Pilon has an encouraging article in the Wall Street Journal today, "Congress Rediscovers the Constitution." It is also a fine little primer Progressivism, how we lost the rule of law in America, and how we can get it back.

The Republicans will begin the 112th Congress with a salutary gesture which should become a tradition: they will read the entire Constitution on the House floor. Hurrah! But it gets better. They have introduced a new procedural rule "requiring members to cite the specific constitutional authority for any bill they introduce."

What is interesting is Barney Frank's dismissive response to this requirement. "It's an air kiss they're blowing to the tea party." Well, he's got one thing right. Bringing our government back under the rule of the Constitution is certainly the heart of what the Tea Party movement has been demanding. There is nothing in that that is "extreme" or "racist" or any of the other things that liberal Democrats like Frank have said characterizes the Tea Party movement.

But his quip also reveals what utter contempt he has for the Constitution in particular and for limited government in general. Given that, I am not going too far in calling him a revolutionary and a traitor.

We heard the same things from Speaker Nancy Pelosi when the San Francisco liberal controlled the House. When asked where in the Constitution she found the authority to require people to buy health insurance, she responded with incredulity, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"



Perhaps you remember Illinois Congressman Phil "I-don't-worry-about-the-Constitution" Hare (D-obviously) from my post "Political Evil This Way Comes."



Speaking of traitors, in laying that charge I am picking up from where I left off in an earlier post, "We Are Engaged in a Great Civil War." That comes with a reading list and a list of helpful websites.

Today's Journal also has a related and hope inspiring (yup, we got hope! and maybe change too!) editorial, "Rules for Smaller Government," that explains some new House rules that will make it harder for this Congress to tax and spend, replacing rules from previous Congresses that made it harder to cut taxes and easier to spend freely.

Turning Anger Into Reform

It's not just that the Democrats won and the Republicans lost over the health insurance reform issue. What angers people is that the President and the Congressional leadership forced through a package that was highly unpopular with the electorate. In addition, it was only able to squeak through (unable to attract even a single Republican vote from anywhere in the country, notes Daniel Henninger in "Repeal the Democrats") only by bribing and threatening a significant number from their own party. So what has people angry is not only the vast expansion of government control over the details of people's lives, but, in two words, the condescension and the corruption.

There is much talk now about throwing the Democrats out of office in November, i.e., using the ballot box to remove specific people from power. So in the Wall Street Journal just today, Daniel Henninger writes "Repeal the Democrats," and Karl Rove gives us, "What the Republicans Should Do Now." Rove recommends offering reform, but he means alternative health care reform.

But in the wake of what these Euro-Social Democrats have done to a trusting public, deeper reform is needed. This is what I argue in my WORLDmag.com article today, "Turning Public Anger into Political Reform." It starts this way:

Political rage is a terrible thing to waste. And after forcing through a government takeover of the healthcare industry that most people passionately oppose, Congress seems to be a worthy target for public wrath. Of course, death threats and vandalism are not only counterproductive, they’re also uncivilized and evil. There is a more politic way, a more American way.

It was the securely rooted, career politicians—the old “liberal bulls” of Congress—who commanded this assault on the collective judgment of the American people. Consider how long the most prominent champions of Obamacare have been sitting in the House. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been in office for almost 23 years. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), 29 years. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and George Miller (D-Calif.), 35 years. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), 39 years. In a fantastically talented nation of 300 million people, why should the same 535 people govern us from the two houses of Congress decade after decade? Once you are elected to Congress, you have a greater chance of dying in office than of being voted out. The Gerrymander has produced a Leviathan.

I then reproduce something called the Congressional Reform Act of 2010, a suggestion that has been blowing around the internet for at least four months now.

1. Term limits: 12 years only, with one of the possible options below:
A. Two six-year Senate terms.
B. Six two-year House terms.
C. One six-year Senate term and three two-year House terms.

2. No tenure and no pension:
A member of Congress collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when he or she is out of office.

3. Members of Congress (past, present, and future) participate in Social Security:
All funds in the congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system; members of Congress participate with the American people.

4. Members of Congress can purchase their own retirement plans just like all other Americans.

5. Members of Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of the Consumer Price Index or 3 percent.

6. Members of Congress lose their current healthcare system and participate in the same healthcare system as the American people.

7. Members of Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present members of Congress are void effective one year after passage of the bill. The American people did not make contracts with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Some of it is repetitive. Number 1 would require a constitutional amendment. I think 5 should be just a flat 3% annual raise. It would give them lots of incentive to bring down inflation when it's at 10% or more. It's likely an average inflation figure over the years. And I have no idea what #8 means.

The term limits are the heart of it, however. This is what I say in the column:

First, term limits (which, by the way, would require a constitutional amendment) are undemocratic, yes, but they’re republican like our Constitution. That is, like so many provisions in the Constitution, they are a correction to our democracy designed to bring out the people’s better judgment, and to guard them against manipulation by political gamers. Gerrymandering has, to a large extent, made a farce out of popular election. This is a method of redrawing the boundaries of a congressional district in a way that maximizes the likelihood that an incumbent or his or her party will remain in power. In essence, the people get to choose the politicians only after the politicians have first chosen the people who will choose them. Do you see a problem?

Gerrymandering goes back at least as far as Eldridge Gerry for whom the practice is named. Ideally, there should be a complete redistricting from coast to coast (plus the outlying bits), undertaken by an impartial body ignorant of which party controls what areas at this point, giving attention simply to more or less equal representation between districts  as well as natural, civic, and community boundaries. But, because from a republican standpoint I would base the need for term limits on the corruption of the electoral process that comes from Gerrymandering, for that reason I would not apply these limits to Senators since, as statewide representatives, they have no control over who elects them.

Unlikely That We'll Throw the Bums Out

Rasmussen reports that, in the wake of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, 59% of those polled would vote to replace the entire Congress. Given how radical Barack Obama would be as president, not only in taxing and spending but also in his suppression of criticism, it would be good for our liberty and prosperity if his power were balanced by at least one house of Congress. If every member in the House of Representatives were shown the door, the Democratic majority would become a Republican majority. The Senate is designed to be more stable in its membership, and so only one third of that body comes up for re-election every two years.

But do not hold out hope for any kind of upheaval of this sort. Public disapproval of Congress as a whole rarely translates into voters' disapproval of their own congressmen. The last electoral upending of the House was in 1994 and it was a rare event. It was a midterm election, so voters could focus their attention on congressional issues, and it happened under the gifted leadership of Republican House leader, Newt Gingrich. As we have seen in the last couple of weeks, there are no leaders of any description in Congress at this time.