Obama blames Founding Fathers’ ‘structural’ design of Congress for gridlock

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/

It was a safeguard against those who would be king.

Exactly!:thumbsup:
Those darn forefathers have been sticking in Obama’s craw,since his first term.I heard an interview on 60minutes when he was running for a second term.He more or less stated that the Forefathers ,through their framing of the Constitution,had created certain obstacles that were making it difficult for him to get through legislation.He then went on to say,he was very persistent and that is why he needed a se on term.:rolleyes:

His pen must have run out of ink, and maybe someone forgot to pay the phone bil. :slight_smile:

Well if this doesn’t make his un-Constitutional and dictatorial beliefs crystal clear, nothing will. But then again, anybody who has been paying attention would be clear on this by now.

How so? Setting aside the inflammatory headline, the article doesn’t indicate that Obama was “blaming” the founding fathers. Rather, Obama was simply restating the well-known situation that the rural states (which lean heavily Republican) are favored in the Senate, whereas the urban states (which lean Democrat) are favored in the House.

I think this story is a case of a newspaper, which (after all) was founded to advance a political point of view, simply editorializing in its headline.

The bad part of senatorial elections was the 17th amendment, which overturned the constitutional provision that senators would be elected by state legislatures, not popular vote. House members were to be elected by popular vote, senators by the state legislatures. That provides more checks and balances than the current system. It would also save a heck of a lot of money on campaigning.

I don’t consider Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, or even really Georgia, Arizona or Texas rural like South Dakota.

Exactly. It’s one of the basic things I learned in high school about the American government. It was designed that way, and very intentionally. And God forbid we try to work through it together to reach. . .

:eek:

greater understanding through intense discussion and perhaps even a compromise! :wink:

That is fine, but it doesn’t seem related to Obama’s statements. He was talking about low population states being favored by Senate apportionment, vs large population states being favored by apportionment in the House.

As a practical matter: With as poorly as the nation is doing, would accomplishing much more of the administration’s goals improve matters somehow?

I like gridlock.

Absent crises such as world war, the less government, the better.

DCnian gridlock is probably the best preservative of citizen liberties we have.

ICXC NIKA

It’d be fine except for the foolish part about the debt ceiling.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Just keep raising the debt ceiling indefinitely, in perpetuity. When the whole thing collapses, nobody will be at fault.

I don’t see the problem, that is exactly why we ended up with a bicameral legislature.

Exactly. The single most destructive amendment to American constitutional representative republican governance in our history.

Jon

I think the point is that it is good that there are 2 senators from each state. That prevents us from having a permanent democratic senate, and there are more than a few of us who would really not like to see that happen.

Obama has stated before that the constitution is flawed because it puts limits on what the government can do,that is,to expand its powers over the nation. This is the opinion of many law professors - those who favor socialism.

newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-constitution/2008/10/27/id/326165/

realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/06/obama_on_being_president_you_get_better_as_time_goes_on.html

Matt Lauer, NBC: I have talked to so many people over the last couple years, President Obama, who were huge supporters of yours in 2008. And today they are not sure. I hear more and more that they’re disappointed in you. That you aren’t the transformational political figure that they hoped you would be. How does that make you feel when you hear that?

President Barack Obama: I think this is the nature of being President. What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008.

Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes. But what I have been able to do is move in the right direction. And what I’m going to keep on doing is plot away, very persistent. You know what? One of the things about being President is you get better as time goes on.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.