Okay Mr. Canadian, I’ll try my best to explain it. The first thing you have to remember is that food stamps are a recent invention compared to the history of the country. Not that recent, but they came around just about when the boomers (for some of us, our parents. For others, grandparents) were about to be born.
So, when the framers got together to design the Constitution, food stamps did not exist (they weren’t even an idea of the time) and they were deathly afraid of a powerful government (a mix between the circumstances leading up to the Boston tea party and the slavery question/compromise between the North and South). So, under that framing, the founders were dead set on having the power of the purse being under as many people’s representation as possible. That is why the power of the purse and the allocation, of which the allocation of food stamps would fall under, is in Article 1 (Congressional powers) of our Constitution.
Yeah it can’t get its shit together but, at the same time, with the jackass we have now, putting the food stamps (or any allocation of the budgetary allotments) under the control of someone so petty is actually a godsend.
I don’t know what fail safes Canada has, so I can’t speak to that. However, does our Constitution need some amendments? YES As to what those are/would be, I cannot say because the list is too long. I think one of the reasons we are having such issue now is because our political system has been so captured since Regan that half the country feels like its living with a crazy lady in the attic, and they don’t want to feed the insanity any more than necessary. Is that a bad way to keep a country going? Probably
I mean, the main failsafes we have in Canada are pretty simple.
First, there is no debt calling. Once a budget is passed it remains in effect until a new budget is passed. Government departments are funded until specific actions are taken to make them not be funded.
Second, and this is the main one; budgets are considered confidence votes. That means if you ever fail to pass one, you’re done. Hand over the keys to country, you don’t get to drive it anymore. Either the opposition forms a government if they’re united enough to do so, or we go to the polls and elect a new one.
The first part means that during this process the basic mechanisms of state all continue to function. No one misses a paycheck. It can be annoying having to go to the polls again, maybe a few times in a row even if political deadlock is particularly bad, but ultimately its the voters who get to decide the outcome, not the politicians.
Shutdowns have terribly little to do with the Constitution or Founding Fratboys. They’re mostly the result of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (and then repealing the “Gephardt rule” in 1995).
Having a debt ceiling is idiotic. Congress passes a budget to decide what to spend, so why would they need to pass another bill to fund the spending they already passed? Literally, the answer to that is “So they can shut down the government.”
This isn’t an issue of “the power of the purse” or checks and balances. It’s political grandstanding. Republicans are determined to break the country.
Shutdowns have terribly little to do with the Constitution . . … They’re mostly the result of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (and then repealing the “Gephardt rule” in 1995).
What ever restrictions that Congress puts on its budgets and developing budgets are well within its power of the purse under Article 1 Section 8, which expressly states:
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.
If Congress chooses to express that limitation within a statute, that is well within its rights. So, whether or not it is actually about political grandstanding is moot under the constitution because it is expressly within Congress’s power of the purse.
Well, in the context of sovereign states, the equivalent of a therapist would probably be another nation invading the US and rooting out the Nazis. But, would that happen today? No. So, the crazy lady in the attic, while heavily a US problem, is also a global problem.
We don’t need to be invaded, we are actually capable of rooting out the Nazis ourselves. But around a third of white people are white supremacists and another third get really mad when you call their friends white supremacists, so…
Okay Mr. Canadian, I’ll try my best to explain it. The first thing you have to remember is that food stamps are a recent invention compared to the history of the country. Not that recent, but they came around just about when the boomers (for some of us, our parents. For others, grandparents) were about to be born.
So, when the framers got together to design the Constitution, food stamps did not exist (they weren’t even an idea of the time) and they were deathly afraid of a powerful government (a mix between the circumstances leading up to the Boston tea party and the slavery question/compromise between the North and South). So, under that framing, the founders were dead set on having the power of the purse being under as many people’s representation as possible. That is why the power of the purse and the allocation, of which the allocation of food stamps would fall under, is in Article 1 (Congressional powers) of our Constitution.
Yeah it can’t get its shit together but, at the same time, with the jackass we have now, putting the food stamps (or any allocation of the budgetary allotments) under the control of someone so petty is actually a godsend.
I don’t know what fail safes Canada has, so I can’t speak to that. However, does our Constitution need some amendments? YES As to what those are/would be, I cannot say because the list is too long. I think one of the reasons we are having such issue now is because our political system has been so captured since Regan that half the country feels like its living with a crazy lady in the attic, and they don’t want to feed the insanity any more than necessary. Is that a bad way to keep a country going? Probably
I mean, the main failsafes we have in Canada are pretty simple.
First, there is no debt calling. Once a budget is passed it remains in effect until a new budget is passed. Government departments are funded until specific actions are taken to make them not be funded.
Second, and this is the main one; budgets are considered confidence votes. That means if you ever fail to pass one, you’re done. Hand over the keys to country, you don’t get to drive it anymore. Either the opposition forms a government if they’re united enough to do so, or we go to the polls and elect a new one.
The first part means that during this process the basic mechanisms of state all continue to function. No one misses a paycheck. It can be annoying having to go to the polls again, maybe a few times in a row even if political deadlock is particularly bad, but ultimately its the voters who get to decide the outcome, not the politicians.
Anyway, thanks for the detailed answer.
Shutdowns have terribly little to do with the Constitution or Founding Fratboys. They’re mostly the result of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (and then repealing the “Gephardt rule” in 1995).
Having a debt ceiling is idiotic. Congress passes a budget to decide what to spend, so why would they need to pass another bill to fund the spending they already passed? Literally, the answer to that is “So they can shut down the government.”
This isn’t an issue of “the power of the purse” or checks and balances. It’s political grandstanding. Republicans are determined to break the country.
What ever restrictions that Congress puts on its budgets and developing budgets are well within its power of the purse under Article 1 Section 8, which expressly states:
If Congress chooses to express that limitation within a statute, that is well within its rights. So, whether or not it is actually about political grandstanding is moot under the constitution because it is expressly within Congress’s power of the purse.
You know I said something like this to my therapist once. I ended up with a lot therapy in a short amount of time
Well, in the context of sovereign states, the equivalent of a therapist would probably be another nation invading the US and rooting out the Nazis. But, would that happen today? No. So, the crazy lady in the attic, while heavily a US problem, is also a global problem.
We don’t need to be invaded, we are actually capable of rooting out the Nazis ourselves. But around a third of white people are white supremacists and another third get really mad when you call their friends white supremacists, so…