Senate Authority Quotes
This principle survives to this day in the United States and many other countries. Money may only be spent by the Executive Branch without the modern equivalent of “a decree of the senate”—an appropriation bill.
Martin and other anti-Federalists argued against ratifying the new Constitution as they thought that it was inimical to the state’s interest. The notion of Federalism as a danger to states is clearly stated in this quotation for the debate on Constitutional ratification. Fundamentally, are Senators representatives of their states or of the Federal Government. If the former, who can the senators be recalled or impeached by the states to who the presumably owe their loyalty? This issue, like so many others, was compromised. The States would control the selection and method of selection of the Senators but could not recall or impeach. Looking back, we see this as logically inconsistent. However, looking at it as a political compromise between two legitimate points of view, it seems quite reasonable. Early America was a combination of idealism and pragmatism which has carried throughout American history.
This letter was written shortly after the Constitution had been signed by the convention delegates. This difference between Adams and Jefferson would be at the heart of the first great partisan struggle in American history. Adams, as the second President, tried to increase and use the power of the Presidency. Jefferson opposed him, especially when Adams tried to run for a second term. The Adams-led Federalists were pitted against Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans in the first, and perhaps still the most bitter partisan struggle in American political history. The Jeffersonians accused Adams and the Federalists of trying to unravel the American Revolution and revert to a monarchy. The people not only sided with the Democratic Republicans, ousting Adams, but also turned out most of the Federalists. It was the end of the Federalist Party, and a new conservative party—without monarchial tendencies—the Whigs became the new opposition party.
“Rotation” was the word for “term limits.” The Constitution was amended to limit the President to 2 terms, but there is not yet a limit on senators. What is interesting is that Jefferson did not include members of the House of Representatives in his call for term limits. Yet today, they are the ones who are the most entrenched.
Periodically in American history, there has been a struggle between the Executive Branch and the Senate for dominance. The Senate’s power is negative however. It can block things, but cannot directly make them happen. The President can do both.
From this quotation, {624648} and {615901} it is clear that the framers of the Constitution intended the treaty making powers to be shared by the President and the Senate. In practice, in modern times treaties are usually initially negotiated by diplomats under the supervision of the President and the Senate gets to concur or not in the ratification process. However, there have been a number of treaty failures including the League of Nations where the lack of coordination has resulted in a situation where the Senate had to accept or reject something which the President had negotiated and the Senate rejected the treaty.
Senators have throughout our history used their power of treaty ratification to encroach on the executive branch and participate in the actual negotiations of treaties. President’s like McKinley to avoid non ratification actually appointed 3 senators to his 5 man treaty negotiating team. The 2/3 super majority is a high hurdle for ratification and presidents have always tilted with the Senate on treaties.
Most legislative bodies have rules about when and under what conditions a vote is taken. Amendments, procedures, committees all have procedures where votes may be taken that could defeat a nomination or a proposed law but if those defeats fail, there still is not necessarily a law passed or a nomination confirmed. That has to be a separate vote, often called an “up or down vote.” One parliamentary mechanism for opposing a bill or a nomination is to keep voting on amendments and procedures and never have an up or down vote. This is actually true with the vast majority of the laws proposed in both houses of the Congress. Most never do have an up or down vote. Why Gerhatdt and other ask should judicial nominations be different from any law, or any other presidential nomination? Also see {588517} for another factor.
Most Republicans at the time were beholden to corporations and business who then demanded high tariffs and other protectionisms so they could maintain high prices and not have to compete with British and European imports. Roosevelt and a few other reform Republicans were free traders along with most Democrats. Roosevelt had so many other reforms in the fire that he decided not to take this one on at the same time and thought that the benefit would not be good enough for the nation to offset the open civil war of the Republican Party that would ensue. In the latter half of the 20th century, large American companies had opened or invested in foreign corporations and/or were manufacturing many of their products abroad. So they then advocated free trade. When they did, the Republican Party flip flopped and adopted free trade as one of its basic principles. Meanwhile, the Democrats who were free traders in the early 20th Century had become protectionists by the end of the 20th century as labor movement wanted to protect American jobs.
McLendon was representing the San Antonio Light and was in part defending the Texas minority leader. But as time would tell, LBJ would be the most powerful and influential speaker in Senate history, even at such a young age.
