Don't bother taking notes:
[Barack] Obama took a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his parties’ inability to maintain control of the Senate on “structural” problems.
At a Dem fundraiser in Chicago, he told a group of wealthy liberals that one of the things [putt]ing Democrats in [jeopardy] is the apportionment of Senate seats to each state regardless of population.
“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said. “So there are some structural reasons why, despite the fact that Republican ideas are largely rejected by the public, it’s still hard for us to break through.”
Well. I suppose I should point out that issues polls have shown for a number of months that respondents favor the GOP over the Democrats by increasing margins across the board. Or that the House of Representatives, where representation is apportioned by population, has resided in GOP hands for the past three and a half years, and sixteen of the past twenty. Or that midterm election preference polling is showing an ever-building Republican tide. Democrat midterm election prospects are not in the waste extractor because of how Congress is constitutionally "structured," but because of the fact, contra The One, that it is Democrat ideas - Obama's ideas, and Barack Obama himself - that are "largely rejected by the public". Something that his blind-guide ideology, impenetrable moral supremacism, and cosmic narcissism won't allow to even rise into his subconscious, much less his waking thoughts. Which is part and parcel of why, despite the avalanche of warning signs, the Donk decimation coming five months from now will still take them by surprise and leave them "stunned" and "shell-shocked".
It's also why it isn't difficult to read between the lines of O's comments and see his implication: that the Constitution must be changed to ensure Democrats never lose power. Or simply ignored to impose and enforce that end. Which is odd, because you'd think a purported ex-"Constitutional law professor" would be aware of the progress towards that objective made by the Seventeenth Amendment, which fundamentally stripped the States of representation and converted the Senate into a "super-House" with only the outer facade (equal representation by State) left intact. Or, in ObamaSpeak, "structural problems". Since he's got a pen and a phone and way too much time on his hands anyway, beats me why he just doesn't issue an Executive decree abolishing the Senate and making Congress unicameral.
Oh, wait, the GOP still controls the House. Well, he can just add a paragraph ordering the arrest of all House Republicans and appointing Democrat replacements. Article I, Section 2 doesn't allow that, but that's just another "structural problem" to be remedied as needed, right?
Exit quote from Federalist 62:
No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.
Hope O is taking notes.
No comments:
Post a Comment