US Constitution: Congressional vs. "majority political party powers." [List Edits]
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
|First thread | Last thread|
|Home » Discuss » Archives » Research Forum|
|Open Edit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore||Thu Nov-10-05 11:08 PM
|US Constitution: Congressional vs. "majority political party powers."|
Edited on Fri Nov-11-05 01:12 PM by The Judged
This new topic is awaiting edits. It was started by The Judged.
Dear DU members:
Perhaps you can help me in this thread to shed light on the "majority political party Congressional powers" that exist in Congress, to understand the genesis of those powers, and to establish a plan to promote widespread public knowledge of those powers in order to advance the American Public's interest in ending those powers and fulfilling the US Constitution's true mandate:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Preamble, US Constitution
In this thread, I am hoping that we can have friendly input to resolve what I believe are Constitutional questions about those "majority political party Congressional powers."
How do I define "majority political party Congressional powers?"
"Majority political party Congressional powers" are powers over the product of Congress, the rules of its proceedings, the process and product of legislating laws, and have direct influence over other branches of our government and the American Public.
In my opinion, these powers are established by the currently existing Congressional rules for proceedings set by the Senate and the House of Representatives by Congressional authority in the US Constitution in Article I Section 5": "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.".
Why are these "majority political party Congressional powers" of interest, and why should we even care about them?
Well, they are of interest, because they aren't actually specified in the US Constitution, yet they exist in practice, and they effect almost every action of the US Congress, every law in the United States, and every American citizen's life at every moment.
How do they affect you?
They affect you when a "majority political party Congressional power" is used to disenfranchise elected officials in Congress and the American Public as a result of, for example, "majority political party Congressional power" to control a Congressional committee and lock the other members out of any role in the outcome of that committees actions, which could be as important as whether or not to use that committees’ Congressional authority to conduct oversight on the Executive Branch of the federal government or to control the nature of and content of a bill as it is shaped by that committee and then sent to the full Senate for a vote on its way to becoming a law.
To explain this further, let us use an example:
If the President has direct knowledge of a crime committed by a member of his cabinet, and the crime is against the United States, but the President doesn't want this cabinet member's crime to be found out by the American Public, for fear of political costs to himself, his administration, and his “political party” that such a discovery would most likely bring, then the President might not perform his Constitutional duty and be forthright in disclosing the crime and the evidence to Congress whose job is to investigate this crime and act on the results of such a criminal investigation to either impeach and try the Cabinet member for their crime or to exonerate the Cabinet member if they are found to be innocent.
While there are 100 Senators in the Senate, with two for each state, there may only be 14 members on this Senate committee charged by the Senate with the jurisdiction to conduct oversight on this matter.
The composition of Senators on this committee would, according to the rules of the Senate, have the "majority political party" with 8 voting seats on this committee and the rest of Senate represented by non-members of the "majority political party" with 6 voting seats on this committee.
Now if the President is also a member of the "majority political party" that controls this Senate Committee, then it may happen that the Chairman of this Senate Committee might have a political party motivation to not want to find any evidence of a crime or the truth in response to this charge of a crime to that committee.
If that were the case, then the Chairman of this committee could use his influence over those 7 other "majority political party" members, using "party discipline," to ensure that they vote on all matters just as he wants them to.
He could threaten them with loss of their committee seat and the associated powers that that seat gives them, or other even more costly threats, in order to ensure that these “majority political party” members submit to their "party discipline" and so they will vote as the Chairman of this committee wants them to vote on all matters related to this matter before this committee.
If this chairman were to succeed in ensuring "party discipline" and not looking for evidence of a crime and labeling all information and evidence that passed before this committee as "classified" and "top secret," then this committee Chairman could control the entire investigation or even whether there would be any further investigation, and any results of these actions by refusing to seek facts, evidence, and sworn testimony from anyone.
If all 6 non-members of the "majority political party" wanted to follow a lead and issue a subpoena to have the Cabinet member testify before the committee, the Chairman could use "party discipline" to ensure a vote on the matter resulted in no subpoena: 8 "majority political party" members vote against the request, while 6 non-members of the "majority political party" vote for the subpoena.
In this manner, this Chairman of this Senate committee could prevent any real investigation of the crime reported to this committee, and based on the absence of any evidence against the Cabinet member, this Chairman of this committee could draw up a report to the full Senate that completely exonerates the Cabinet member of any criminal behavior, and every member of that committee could truthfully sign it based on their not having found any evidence, despite the Chairman's obstruction and denial of any substantial investigation of the charges and any protests against this committee Chairman by those 6 non-members of the “majority political party.”
The full Senate would then be issued this report and act on the fact that the committee is in favor of exonerating the Cabinet member and ending any further action on the charges by the Senate.
In essence, instead of 100 Senators investigating and considering true facts and other information or evidence, one Senator acting as a chairman of the "majority political party" and this committee could prevent the full Senate from even knowing the truth about the allegations and cause the Senate to reach the wrong conclusion on an important charge against a Cabinet member.
The American Public would then be unwittingly misled by the US Senate, based on the actions of a President and a Senate Committee Chairman who are both members of a political party that has "majority political party Congressional power" in the Senate.
In this example a crime was committed by a Cabinet member of the President's administration and the Congress failed to act in good faith to investigate and impeach this cabinet member because Senate rules dictate "majority political party Congressional powers" and based on those powers a lone Senator was chosen by the members of the "majority political party" to be Chairman of the committee and was able to use "party discipline" in order to prevent the committee members from getting to the truth and finding the evidence to prove the crime.
The net effect of this example was that a "majority political party" could use its power over members of Congress to achieve goals that are in that political party's interests and against the interests of the American Public.
Well, isn't the "majority political party" the government?
No, it isn't.
The "majority political party" is a private organization that purports to act on the behalf of its members who are the American Public and elected government officials.
The "majority political party" is not the government and is not specifically granted any special privileges by or even mentioned in the US Constitution.
Well, if the "majority political party" isn't the government and is a private organization that has no powers directly outlined by the US Constitution, then how we are always seeing the "majority political party" exercise total influence over our government and thus our lives as American citizens?
That is an important question.
What I would like to establish is whether or not "majority political party Congressional powers" are directly derived from the US Constitution and how that can be proven and established.
In my opinion, they are not.
Additionally, I'd like to establish whether or not "majority political party Congressional powers" actually exist and, if so, how they exist, and what those powers are.
In my opinion they exist, they permeate throughout the entire Congress, and they are comprehensive and total powers over the proceedings and product of the US Congress and even very influential over the powers of the Executive and Judicial Branches of our government.
Further, if these "majority political party Congressional powers" exist now, then I'd like to establish their constitutional basis for existing.
In my opinion, they do not have a constitutional basis and they should not exist.
As well, if these "majority political party Congressional powers" actually exist, then I'd like to demonstrate that they exist directly as a result of the rules of proceedings that the Congress has adopted.
In my opinion, the rules as adopted by both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives are the direct source of these "majority political party Congressional powers."
Also, if these "majority political party Congressional powers" can be demonstrated to exist as a direct result of the rules as adopted by both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, then I'd like to demonstrate that those rules are not constitutional, IN PRACTICE.
In my opinion, it can be demonstrated that the "majority political party Congressional powers" exist as a direct result of the rules as adopted by both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, and the question of whether those rules are constitutional IN PRACTICE is valid and shall be forthcoming.
If it is true that "majority political party Congressional powers" exist, and true that they exist as a direct result of the rules as adopted by both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, then I'd like to establish whether or not the US Constitution provides for checks and balances on the Congress with respect to the rules that Congress may set for its proceedings.
Also, I’d like to establish what those checks and balances are, how those checks and balances may be employed to address those rules and the question of whether those rules are in fact Constitutional, if those rules are Constitutional then whether those rules remain Constitutional IN PRACTICE when they are used to create an unconstitutional Congressional power and/or law, and how such an unconstitutional Congressional rule, power, and/or law can be addressed legitimately by the government even though the Congress acted in good faith and according to the Constitution by setting the rule.
In my opinion, those the rules that Congress may set for its proceedings are subject to checks and balances and can be addressed by the US Supreme Court to determine whether or not they are Constitutional if they are addressed in a challenge of a law created by use of those Congressional rules.
What is the distinction between Congressional rules IN PRACTICE and their creation and existence by Congress in compliance with the US Constitution?
The distinction is that Congress has a Constitutional mandate to set the rules for its proceedings, but that IN PRACTICE that those rules as set by the Congress could, in fact, achieve an unconstitutional end.
If the Rules of Congress are shown to achieve an unconstitutional end, then I believe that the Supreme Court has the authority to decide on such matters, but that it only does when the fruit of the poison tree is challenged, or the law that Congress has passed is enacted.
Once this law is enacted, I believe that an American citizen has the Constitutional right and the US Supreme court has the Constitutional jurisdiction to establish the constitutionality of such a law, once challenged by an American citizen who demonstrates that they suffer an unconstitutional injustice by enactment of this law, and it is during this process that the US Supreme Court may come to the opinion that such a law has at its basis an unconstitutional process that results from a rule on proceedings by the Congress.
In my opinion, the US Supreme Court can strike down such a law, and the Congress can weigh such a rebuke by either addressing the rule that the US Supreme Court has ruled was unconstitutional IN PRACTICE, or the Congress can continue to use that rule in creating more laws that could be equally challenged and found by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.
For the sake of argument, it is my opinion that the end result would be for Congress to change the Congressional rule so the US Supreme Court would not be able to strike down future laws on the same basis.
So, are you ready?
If you have any relevant information, research, web links, book titles, or other information that relates to my questions, then kindly submit them here.
Anything you have to offer, whether critical or supportive in nature, is better than nothing.
|Refresh | 0 Recommendations||Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Top|
|Home » Discuss » Archives » Research Forum|
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC