Political Gimmicks And The Constitution

Joan McCarter covers Claire McCasklil's political gimmickry on the budget (I think it is stupid politics on her part, but who knows?). While Joan details how awful the proposal is on substance, I was struck by the brazen attempt to use a procedure that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. Here's is the plan:

Enforcing Spending Caps[.] If federal spending is projected to exceed the CAP Act designated amount for that year, the OMB is required to sequester funds such that it brings federal spending back to the CAP Act mandated levels. [. . .] This concept is based in part on the sequestration requirements of the current PAYGO law and its predecessor, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.

The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act and Emergency Deficit Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Bowsher v. Synar. Obviously this proposal is nothing but a political gimmick, with no chance of passage. Similar gimmicks which have been declared unconstitutional like the line item veto are also still trotted out. Is it too much to ask of our pols that they present better thought out gimmicks?

Speaking for me only

< Opt Out Federalism | Submitted For Your Consideration >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Unconstitutional now, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 12:51:22 PM EST
    would the current Supreme Court respect the precedent if they were able to pass it?

    Almost certainly (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    The current composition of the Court is even more averse to this idea than the 1986 Court.

    Why do you hate Lucille Ball? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    By comparing her great talent to politicians?

    I know (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    And I agree with you.

    The other part of the problem (rather, the other side of the coin), is that people are now only going to news sources that agree with their political philosophy and we are getting to the point of "If it came from X, it CAN'T be true," and "If Y said something, it MUST be taken as gospel."

    That's why I check out many different sources (when I can) - even if I don't agree with the editorial page of the site. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.  I think there's too many hacks out there to trust going to one or two sources that I may agree with.