I try to make the rounds of the NH newspapers; this morning at the Concord Monitor I came across a Letter to the Editor from someone who definitely doesn’t understand his civics (emphasis mine):
Letter: Cheated by Ayotte, GOP
Sen. Ayotte was recently quoted as saying she believes “the American people deserve to have a voice in the direction of the court.” That was code for her position that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is right to not even consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland for a seat on the Supreme Court until a new president is elected.
That’s all fine and dandy, but what about my vote? One of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama in 2012, and not Mitt Romney, is I wanted Obama, not Romney, to nominate the candidates to fill any Supreme Court vacancies that occurred during the following four years. I feel cheated by Sen. Ayotte and her Republican colleagues.
Perhaps the executive branch should stop using tax dollars to fund the current expenses of the U.S. Senate, on the assumption that the Senate elected in November will be more responsive to its constituents.
JOHN V. KJELLMAN
Well of course, I couldn’t let that stand:
So, I’ve put up a coupla few comments – let me edit them down here. First, I let him know what I thought of his Letter:
This is hysterical: “Perhaps the executive branch should stop using tax dollars to fund the current expenses of the U.S. Senate, ”
It shows that this Democrat voter has NO clue what branch of Government is to control and appropriate tax monies (not that they’ve done all that great a job with a $20 Trillion national debt). If you can’t even get THIS singularly important point of how our Republic is to work, perhaps you should rethink your writings.
So he just couldn’t take that people were starting to assail him (NOW I see he attended UC Berkely for “systems analysis”….ayup!):
John V Kjellman · UC Berkeley
The last I heard, the IRS, which is part of the executive branch, collects all the tax money. Some of it then gets distributed to various parts of the federal government, including Congress. True Congress has a hand in setting the rules as to how those funds are distributed, but that doesn’t mean those can’t be challenged in various ways. My point is, if Congress can ignore certain legal responsibilities, perhaps the executive branch can, too.
I guess his system analysis studies failed to ever mention the Rule of Holes. So I decided to remind him of parts of the kernel of our civics system:
US Constitution, Article I Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Which means, Mr. Kjellman, that it is the Legislative Branch that determines how much revenue is to be raised and how and not the IRS (Executive Branch). It is CONGRESS that holds the “power of the purse” – not the IRS.
No Mr. Kjellman, if one is strictly Constitutional, it is the Congress that creates the appropriation bills and not the Executive Branch (even as the President can present suggestions in his own offering of a budget) in creating every US budget. It is NOT “Congress has a hand” – it has the ONLY hand for legally binding legislation for raising and spending money. THe Executive Branch is only to execute the Laws that which the Legislative Branch creates.
Skip Murphy
“Perhaps the executive branch should stop using tax dollars to fund the current expenses of the U.S. Senate”. As I just pointed out, this is impossible [for the Executive Branch to withhold monies from Congress] as it is the Congress that does the appropriating how tax funds are to be used – not the Executive Branch.
Congress not only sets the budget for the Federal Government but also its own budget – and the Executive Branch can do nothing about it, contra what Mr. Kjellman thinks. But he decided to double down:
John V Kjellman · UC Berkeley
What is it about democracy you don’t understand? Ayotte won the election, not my choice but I accept the choice of the majority. She is one of my U.S. Senators, and she has some obligations to me as one of her constituents. That, of course, does not bind her to vote the way I would like on every (or any) issue, but she does have an obligation to carry out her duties. One of which is to not deliberately thwart the normal functions of our government or a president for whom I did vote.
So, back to school:
John V Kjellman We aren’t a democracy – we are a Constitutional representative Republic – big difference.
John V Kjellman The Constitution, Article II Section 2, says “he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”. Thus Obama MUST (for that is what SHALL means) nominate someone; there is no SHALL in the clause of “advice and consent”. There is no obligation on the part of the US Senate to do ANYTHING as “advice” can mean “ignore” or do nothing – that negative advice is perfectly Constitutional. Negative consent is also permissible. Remember, Constitutionally, the US Senate makes its own rules (Article I, Section 5 Clause 2) so if this is how it wishes to fulfill “advice and consent”, it has the final say.
John V Kjellman “One of which is to not deliberately thwart the normal functions of our government or a president for whom I did vote”.Umm, it is the Constitution that lays out the “normal functions of our government” and it is written TO, via its checks and balances, to deliberately “thwart things” and slow them down – or do nothing at all by pitching the US House against the US Senate against the Executive Branch. And it IS the legitimate and proper role of the Congress to thwart a President with which it disagrees. You can thank our Founders for creating a system that deliberately MAKES IT HARD TO GET THINGS DONE unless there is wide consenses. Which in this case, there isn’t. Perfectly Constitutional.
