Jump to content

Coequal branches of government


Mikel2

Recommended Posts

I'm no constitutional scholar, but Congress can pass laws without the president's signature and even remove him from office.  Congress can remove supreme court justices from office as well.  Neither the executive or judiciary can remove a congressman from office.

So where did the "coequal branches of government" come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It never was supposed to be.  Congress was always "supposed" to be dominant, especially for domestic affairs.  Conversely, the courts were never supposed to have nearly the level of authority they have assumed onto themselves.  S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mikel2 said:

I'm no constitutional scholar, but Congress can pass laws without the president's signature and even remove him from office.  Congress can remove supreme court justices from office as well.  Neither the executive or judiciary can remove a congressman from office.

So where did the "coequal branches of government" come from?

In theory, Congress could do those things.  In practice, they need a two thirds majority in both houses to do so and once having impeached the president, the VP becomes president and appoints a new VP.  They could impeach all the members of the Supreme Court, but it is the president who gets to nominate new judges.

They could spend the next two years impeaching judges and presidents, then they face an election.

Of course, a tyrannical president with an administration and at least five Supreme Court judges fully supporting him could probably have Congress shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, too, that being a congresscritter was not designed to be a full-time job.  Congress used to meet for only a relatively small number of weeks per year.  Extending the sessions required special votes and usually indicated a major crisis.  Most of the time, they were working at home and/or stumping, leaving them relatively little time to do damage.

Too many people think of their role as Doing Something.   We would all be better off if they did almost nothing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Steven P Allen said:

Remember, too, that being a congresscritter was not designed to be a full-time job.  Congress used to meet for only a relatively small number of weeks per year.  Extending the sessions required special votes and usually indicated a major crisis.  Most of the time, they were working at home and/or stumping, leaving them relatively little time to do damage.

Too many people think of their role as Doing Something.   We would all be better off if they did almost nothing at all.

 

Turning legislating into a full time profession has caused so much harm to the nation.   Congressmen need to live at their districts most of the year, making a living outside of politics and living under the laws they pass.

Calvin Coolidge used to say that it was much more important to get rid of bad legislation than to pass good one.  If that's all that congress did from now on, I would be in seventh heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Harold. I note that some of the exemptions cover aspects of labour law that have often been cited here as being detrimental to the success of businesses, particularly small ones.

For some reason, this amuses me, as the laws are in place where they may do damage (although this is arguable), but they are not in place where they would do no harm at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...