This Politico report gives further evidence of a phenomenon that I've described in this and other posts. In order to increase their numbers in the Senate, the Democrats have had to extend themselves beyond their hard-core base.
New Democratic senators from such states as Alaska and Virginia cannot be expected to support the entire agenda of veteran Democrats from states such as California and Massachusetts.
From the other end of the Capitol comes a familiar characterization of the Senate. Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, says “if you have 60 cats, you got to get them all together in the same place to get something done ... herding senators and herding cats have a lot in common.”
That's somewhat more true on the Senate side than it is in the House. But even in the House, things have changed since legendary Speaker Sam Rayburn, Democrat of Texas, supposedly would tell junior congressmen, "if you want to get along, go along." House members may still be easier to herd than senators, but members of the lower house have increasingly developed an independent streak in recent decades.
It's a difficult question. Members of both houses of Congress are answerable to their constituents. But the party leaders in each house need to influence their membership, in order to get anything done. An ability to carefully apply carrots and sticks is a key part of a congressional leader's job description.
That Politico report reminds me of a story that my favorite political science professor liked to tell. When John Kennedy was elected president in 1960, his Democratic Party had large majorities in both houses of Congress, 263-174 in the House and 64-36 in the Senate. But Kennedy was stymied in trying to get legislation through the Congress, largely because those party numbers masked the clout of the Conservative Coalition.
In the 1962 midterm congressional campaign, Kennedy advocated the election of more congressional Democrats, in order to get his legislative program adopted. With those large Democratic majorities already in place, Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, the Republican leader, supposedly responded by asking "how many Democrats does he need?"
Well, the current Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, is hinting at a message similar to Kennedy's, for the 2010 elections. Given the realities of Senate rules, and the lack of party discipline in that legislative body, Reid might need more than the 60 he'll have when/if Al Franken is seated as junior senator from Minnesota.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Supreme Court 6: Civil War
Chief Justice John Marshall's tenure finally came to an end, with his death on July 6, 1835. President Andrew Jackson appointed Roger Taney (pronounced TAH-nee) to succeed Marshall.
Taney served as a state and federal attorney general, and as the federal secretary of the treasury. He then had a 28-year tenure as chief justice. A very active public career over many years. But I would venture a guess that at least 99% of everything that has ever been written about Taney involves only one of his Supreme Court opinions.
That was the 1857 decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Dred Scott was an African American slave, owned by John Emerson, a Missouri physician. During Emerson's service in the Army, he brought Scott with him to the free state of Illinois, and to territory that would later be included in the state of Minnesota.
After Emerson died in 1843, Scott initiated a series of legal actions, seeking his freedom. That process finally culminated in a Supreme Court decision in 1857.
The Court found that Scott was not a "citizen" in the sense in which Article III of the Constitution allows citizens to sue in the federal courts. In the opinion of the Court's majority, that was true of all people of African ancestry, regardless of their status as enslaved or free.
In his opinion for the Court, Taney presented evidence that none of the states who were the original parties to the Constitution would have recognized African Americans as citizens at the time Article III was written. Basing his decision on that criterion is an example of the doctrine of Original Intent, that has been championed in recent years by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Of course, by Scalia's time, the 14th Amendment had specifically reversed that supposed original intent, so the doctrine would not lead Scalia to the same result that Taney reached.
(That's not to paint Scalia as a supporter of the Dred Scott decision. In his dissenting opinion in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion case of 1992, Scalia called Dred Scott "an erroneous and widely opposed opinion".)
The Court's interpretation of "citizen" was bound to be controversial at that time when tensions over slavery were continuing to build, and would lead four years later to Civil War. But another part of the Court's decision was even more incendiary in that respect. They found parts of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. That compromise was part of what had kept the lid in place on the boiling slavery controversy up to that time.
The Missouri Compromise allowed that slave state to enter the union, in exchange for the admission of free Maine, and a limitation on the extension of slavery to territories north and west of Missouri. Striking down that compromise struck a raw nerve in the 1850s political arena. Abraham Lincoln, and other politicians in the new Republican Party, were not abolitionists, per se, at that time. But they strongly opposed the extension of slavery into any new western states.
The notion that someone such as Dred Scott could be held as a slave in those territories, and that the legislative protection against the extension of slavery no longer applied, made the status quo less tenable, and moved the country closer to Civil War.
Taney served as a state and federal attorney general, and as the federal secretary of the treasury. He then had a 28-year tenure as chief justice. A very active public career over many years. But I would venture a guess that at least 99% of everything that has ever been written about Taney involves only one of his Supreme Court opinions.
That was the 1857 decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Dred Scott was an African American slave, owned by John Emerson, a Missouri physician. During Emerson's service in the Army, he brought Scott with him to the free state of Illinois, and to territory that would later be included in the state of Minnesota.
After Emerson died in 1843, Scott initiated a series of legal actions, seeking his freedom. That process finally culminated in a Supreme Court decision in 1857.
The Court found that Scott was not a "citizen" in the sense in which Article III of the Constitution allows citizens to sue in the federal courts. In the opinion of the Court's majority, that was true of all people of African ancestry, regardless of their status as enslaved or free.
In his opinion for the Court, Taney presented evidence that none of the states who were the original parties to the Constitution would have recognized African Americans as citizens at the time Article III was written. Basing his decision on that criterion is an example of the doctrine of Original Intent, that has been championed in recent years by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Of course, by Scalia's time, the 14th Amendment had specifically reversed that supposed original intent, so the doctrine would not lead Scalia to the same result that Taney reached.
(That's not to paint Scalia as a supporter of the Dred Scott decision. In his dissenting opinion in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion case of 1992, Scalia called Dred Scott "an erroneous and widely opposed opinion".)
The Court's interpretation of "citizen" was bound to be controversial at that time when tensions over slavery were continuing to build, and would lead four years later to Civil War. But another part of the Court's decision was even more incendiary in that respect. They found parts of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. That compromise was part of what had kept the lid in place on the boiling slavery controversy up to that time.
The Missouri Compromise allowed that slave state to enter the union, in exchange for the admission of free Maine, and a limitation on the extension of slavery to territories north and west of Missouri. Striking down that compromise struck a raw nerve in the 1850s political arena. Abraham Lincoln, and other politicians in the new Republican Party, were not abolitionists, per se, at that time. But they strongly opposed the extension of slavery into any new western states.
The notion that someone such as Dred Scott could be held as a slave in those territories, and that the legislative protection against the extension of slavery no longer applied, made the status quo less tenable, and moved the country closer to Civil War.
Supreme Court 5: More Marshall
I'm picking up the story from here, after Chief Justice John Marshall successfully asserted his court's power of judicial review, i.e., the power to void acts of Congress that violate the Constitution.
In so doing, Marshall contributed to sorting out the boundaries of the three branches of the federal government, in the separation-of-powers and checks-and-balances systems established by the Constitution.
The Constitution also addressed the issue of the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and Marshall subsequently weighed in on that question.
The political history of the United States has involved, for better or worse, an almost continuous movement toward stronger central government. From the Continental Congresses, to the Constitution of 1787, to the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, to the Supreme Court's belated acceptance of New Deal federal activism, every major move has been in the direction of centralization.
Certain decisions of the Marshall Court in the early 19th century contributed to that trend. One such case is McCulloch v. Maryland, in 1819.
Congress chartered the Bank of the United States, in 1816, and James McCulloch headed up a branch of that bank in Baltimore. The state of Maryland did not take kindly to the imposition of an outside bank within its boundaries. Maryland imposed a tax on operations of the bank, and then sued McCulloch when he refused to pay.
The Supreme Court struck down the state tax, in a decision that set two important precedents:
The first involves the Court's defense of Congress's authority to charter the Bank. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution lists several specific powers allocated to Congress. The Constitutional Convention placed at the end of that list, a paragraph that is sometimes called the "Elastic Clause", which empowers Congress:
The Court interpreted that clause to give Congress the power to take actions not specifically described in that section. While chartering a bank was not specifically allowed, such an action was "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the" powers to tax and spend.
The second precedent prohibited states from interfering in the operations of the federal government.
Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that:
The Court found that Maryland's tax constituted an assertion of supremacy over the federal government. In a case such as this where, in the Court's opinion, the federal government had properly acted within its constitutional authority, federal law trumps state law.
In so doing, Marshall contributed to sorting out the boundaries of the three branches of the federal government, in the separation-of-powers and checks-and-balances systems established by the Constitution.
The Constitution also addressed the issue of the balance of power between the federal government and the states, and Marshall subsequently weighed in on that question.
The political history of the United States has involved, for better or worse, an almost continuous movement toward stronger central government. From the Continental Congresses, to the Constitution of 1787, to the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, to the Supreme Court's belated acceptance of New Deal federal activism, every major move has been in the direction of centralization.
Certain decisions of the Marshall Court in the early 19th century contributed to that trend. One such case is McCulloch v. Maryland, in 1819.
Congress chartered the Bank of the United States, in 1816, and James McCulloch headed up a branch of that bank in Baltimore. The state of Maryland did not take kindly to the imposition of an outside bank within its boundaries. Maryland imposed a tax on operations of the bank, and then sued McCulloch when he refused to pay.
The Supreme Court struck down the state tax, in a decision that set two important precedents:
The first involves the Court's defense of Congress's authority to charter the Bank. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution lists several specific powers allocated to Congress. The Constitutional Convention placed at the end of that list, a paragraph that is sometimes called the "Elastic Clause", which empowers Congress:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Court interpreted that clause to give Congress the power to take actions not specifically described in that section. While chartering a bank was not specifically allowed, such an action was "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the" powers to tax and spend.
The second precedent prohibited states from interfering in the operations of the federal government.
Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Court found that Maryland's tax constituted an assertion of supremacy over the federal government. In a case such as this where, in the Court's opinion, the federal government had properly acted within its constitutional authority, federal law trumps state law.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
India 12: Now
India's month-long general election process will come to an end this week. Now that I've filled in the history leading up to this election, I will describe three possible types of outcomes:
1. A continuation of coalition government led by the Congress Party. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who has headed up such a coalition since the 2004 general election, is leading Congress into this election, as well. However, as I noted here, another generation of the Nehru/Gandhi family seems to be waiting in the wings, to replace the 76-year-old Singh before too long.
2. A return to a coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), similar to the coalition government from 1998 to 2004. Subsequent to the 2004 election, L.K. Advani took over the leadership of the BJP. Advani will be unable to make an issue of Singh's advanced age, because Advani is 81 years old. Narenda Modi, the 58-year-old chief minister of the state of Gujarat is sometimes mentioned as a potential candidate to be the BJP's next leader.
3. A coalition of smaller parties, without the big two. Some observers expect Congress's and BJP's combined share of the total vote to shrink to a level where a viable coalition might be formed without them. A group called the Third Front has emerged as such an alternative. It includes the Communists, who had previously supported Congress, and several regional parties. The Third Front has not designated a candidate for prime minister, but one name that has been frequently mentioned is that of Mayawati Kumari. She is the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, and would be the first Dalit, or member of the low Hindu caste sometimes called the "untouchables", to be prime minister.
A Third Front government appears to be a long-shot possibility.
India's economy is still growing, but at a slower pace. The recession in its export markets, such as the United States, is having an effect. That could diminish the popularity of the free-market reforms that launched India onto a fast track of economic growth during the past two decades.
The BJP seems more ideologically committed to those policies. But a reelected Congress government would probably continue its pragmatic support of free markets. That strategy on the part of Congress has been somewhat hampered by pressures from some of its more leftist coalition partners.
In foreign policy, the U.S. will probably continue to maintain cordial relations with either a Congress government, or one led by the BJP. The main difference might be that the BJP, with its strong identity as a Hindu nationalist party, could have more difficulty than Congress, in relating to Pakistan and other Muslim countries. But international relations are funny that way, and I suppose there could be a "Nixon went to China" effect, whereby the party more confident in its support from Hindus could conceivably open up more to Muslims.
The election results are scheduled to be announced May 16, but the full details of the next government will probably have to wait until protracted coalition negotiations are completed.
1. A continuation of coalition government led by the Congress Party. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who has headed up such a coalition since the 2004 general election, is leading Congress into this election, as well. However, as I noted here, another generation of the Nehru/Gandhi family seems to be waiting in the wings, to replace the 76-year-old Singh before too long.
2. A return to a coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), similar to the coalition government from 1998 to 2004. Subsequent to the 2004 election, L.K. Advani took over the leadership of the BJP. Advani will be unable to make an issue of Singh's advanced age, because Advani is 81 years old. Narenda Modi, the 58-year-old chief minister of the state of Gujarat is sometimes mentioned as a potential candidate to be the BJP's next leader.
3. A coalition of smaller parties, without the big two. Some observers expect Congress's and BJP's combined share of the total vote to shrink to a level where a viable coalition might be formed without them. A group called the Third Front has emerged as such an alternative. It includes the Communists, who had previously supported Congress, and several regional parties. The Third Front has not designated a candidate for prime minister, but one name that has been frequently mentioned is that of Mayawati Kumari. She is the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, and would be the first Dalit, or member of the low Hindu caste sometimes called the "untouchables", to be prime minister.
A Third Front government appears to be a long-shot possibility.
India's economy is still growing, but at a slower pace. The recession in its export markets, such as the United States, is having an effect. That could diminish the popularity of the free-market reforms that launched India onto a fast track of economic growth during the past two decades.
The BJP seems more ideologically committed to those policies. But a reelected Congress government would probably continue its pragmatic support of free markets. That strategy on the part of Congress has been somewhat hampered by pressures from some of its more leftist coalition partners.
In foreign policy, the U.S. will probably continue to maintain cordial relations with either a Congress government, or one led by the BJP. The main difference might be that the BJP, with its strong identity as a Hindu nationalist party, could have more difficulty than Congress, in relating to Pakistan and other Muslim countries. But international relations are funny that way, and I suppose there could be a "Nixon went to China" effect, whereby the party more confident in its support from Hindus could conceivably open up more to Muslims.
The election results are scheduled to be announced May 16, but the full details of the next government will probably have to wait until protracted coalition negotiations are completed.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Heartbreak Ridge
Former Governor Tom Ridge, Republican of Pennsylvania, said yesterday that he will not run in the primary that his party will hold next year, to choose a candidate for the Senate seat held by Capitol Hill's newest Democrat, Arlen Specter.
Earlier this week, I wrote about speculation regarding a potential Ridge candidacy, in this post.
On another topic in that post, Specter has been named chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That's a bit surprising, on the heels of the Democrats' decision not to recognize Specter's seniority.
But it's not all that far out of the ordinary. A freshman among the 435 members of the House of Representatives usually must wait a while before getting a leadership position. But in the Senate, with its smaller membership, there's less of a waiting line. Therefore, it's not unprecedented for a freshman senator (which is the status that his new party has, in effect, bestowed on Specter) to chair a subcommittee.
Nate Silver, in the 538 blog, speculates about whether Ridge is keeping his powder dry for an attempt to get on his party's national ticket in 2012. Seems to me a bit unlikely, but the Republican field will be about as wide open as can be, so I suppose no one can be ruled out.
Earlier this week, I wrote about speculation regarding a potential Ridge candidacy, in this post.
On another topic in that post, Specter has been named chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That's a bit surprising, on the heels of the Democrats' decision not to recognize Specter's seniority.
But it's not all that far out of the ordinary. A freshman among the 435 members of the House of Representatives usually must wait a while before getting a leadership position. But in the Senate, with its smaller membership, there's less of a waiting line. Therefore, it's not unprecedented for a freshman senator (which is the status that his new party has, in effect, bestowed on Specter) to chair a subcommittee.
Nate Silver, in the 538 blog, speculates about whether Ridge is keeping his powder dry for an attempt to get on his party's national ticket in 2012. Seems to me a bit unlikely, but the Republican field will be about as wide open as can be, so I suppose no one can be ruled out.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
India 11: Us and Them, Continued
I wrote here about the complicated relationship between the U.S. and India, during the first quarter-century after that latter country became independent in 1947.
From the late 1970s onward, the relationship improved. Three factors influenced that:
The Soviet Union's influence on India waned. Even before the USSR disintegrated in 1991, there were signs of a tilt toward the American side, late in the Cold War. When Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, she refused to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But she got along well personally with Ronald Reagan and, for the most part, the bilateral relationship was better than it had previously been. And, of course, after 1991, no country any longer had the option of playing the U.S. off against the Soviets.
India, and later Pakistan, went nuclear. India tested a nuclear device in 1974. By that time, India's rival Pakistan had begun developing its own nuclear capability. But Pakistan did not get to the stage of test explosions until 1998. The U.S. has tried economic sanctions to discourage such proliferation, but strategic considerations intervened. Seeking allies, first against the Soviet Union, and later against islamist groups, the U.S. has moderated its stance toward India and Pakistan.
India's economic growth over the past two decades has also changed the picture. For one thing, its increased dedication to capitalism puts it more ideologically in synch with America. Also, on a more concrete level, the greater the trading relationship, the more each country has at stake in its relationship with the other. Therefore, each side is more hesitant to put itself at odds with the other over any given issue.
All of these developments led to the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement between India and the U.S. That agreement was reached in 2005, between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and then-President George Bush. The U.S. Congress completed its approval process in 2008.
The agreement allows India to import materials from the U.S. for India's nuclear power plants. That is an extraordinary step for the U.S. to take with a country, such as India, that is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Council on Foreign Relations provides more details here.
A horrible cliché of the current recession, "too big to fail", is applied to banks and other financial institutions. I suppose it can be adapted to the national level, by saying that, for the U.S., India has become too important to oppose.
From the late 1970s onward, the relationship improved. Three factors influenced that:
The Soviet Union's influence on India waned. Even before the USSR disintegrated in 1991, there were signs of a tilt toward the American side, late in the Cold War. When Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, she refused to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But she got along well personally with Ronald Reagan and, for the most part, the bilateral relationship was better than it had previously been. And, of course, after 1991, no country any longer had the option of playing the U.S. off against the Soviets.
India, and later Pakistan, went nuclear. India tested a nuclear device in 1974. By that time, India's rival Pakistan had begun developing its own nuclear capability. But Pakistan did not get to the stage of test explosions until 1998. The U.S. has tried economic sanctions to discourage such proliferation, but strategic considerations intervened. Seeking allies, first against the Soviet Union, and later against islamist groups, the U.S. has moderated its stance toward India and Pakistan.
India's economic growth over the past two decades has also changed the picture. For one thing, its increased dedication to capitalism puts it more ideologically in synch with America. Also, on a more concrete level, the greater the trading relationship, the more each country has at stake in its relationship with the other. Therefore, each side is more hesitant to put itself at odds with the other over any given issue.
All of these developments led to the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement between India and the U.S. That agreement was reached in 2005, between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and then-President George Bush. The U.S. Congress completed its approval process in 2008.
The agreement allows India to import materials from the U.S. for India's nuclear power plants. That is an extraordinary step for the U.S. to take with a country, such as India, that is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Council on Foreign Relations provides more details here.
A horrible cliché of the current recession, "too big to fail", is applied to banks and other financial institutions. I suppose it can be adapted to the national level, by saying that, for the U.S., India has become too important to oppose.
Supreme Court Diversity
Politico has reported on two openly lesbian legal scholars, who are on some of the lists of potential successors to Associate Justice David Souter.
I'm ambivalent about identity politics. Not pretending to be more high-minded about this than I actually am, I suppose I embrace identity politics when I want to, and don't when I don't.
As a gay man, I would see it as a victory for our Cause, to have an openly-LGBT person on the Court. That's the case, even though, being toward the right-wing end of the LGBT political spectrum, I would probably disagree with such a person on a lot of issues.
I'm not sure what chance, if any, these candidates have. I'm still back in the 19th century, with occasional forays into the 20th, in my history of the Court. So I haven't yet focused on 21st century candidates.
I'm ambivalent about identity politics. Not pretending to be more high-minded about this than I actually am, I suppose I embrace identity politics when I want to, and don't when I don't.
As a gay man, I would see it as a victory for our Cause, to have an openly-LGBT person on the Court. That's the case, even though, being toward the right-wing end of the LGBT political spectrum, I would probably disagree with such a person on a lot of issues.
I'm not sure what chance, if any, these candidates have. I'm still back in the 19th century, with occasional forays into the 20th, in my history of the Court. So I haven't yet focused on 21st century candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
