Skip to main content

A new tactic is being employed by the GOP to nullify or thwart any and all laws that they do not like or agree with (some going back to the New Deal) where they have not been able to stop or reverse the enactment via the normal, or constitutional, legislative process, that is, the democratic process.

NULLIFICATION: The Never Ending War with the left.

How does one obviate a law that cannot be undone by the usual democratic processes? How can a legislator hold his or her head high, having sworn an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, when using every sneaky and underhanded method to undo it?

Throughout history, in a Republic, to enact a law there first has to be a marshaling of forces and opinion for a bill, and then voting on it by the duly elected representatives. This characterizes the legislative processes. Given passage, then begins the enforcement phase with the persons or agencies charged with carrying out the dictates of the bill putting it into practice. This is what we thought we knew as the Democratic process.

However, a new tactic is being employed by the GOP to nullify or thwart any and all laws that they do not like or agree with (some going back to the New Deal) where they have not been able to stop or reverse the enactment via the normal, or constitutional, legislative process, that is, the democratic process.

Rather than accept the majority decision of the duly elected legislators and the signing into law by the sitting president, the new GOP (not your father’s Republican Party) have devised ways to insure that these laws will never come to pass, (at least not in the form or function intended). And this does not relate just to recent laws, but in furtherance of their agenda, the GOP have devised methods to blunt or render ineffective agencies they despise and laws they abhor, but have not been able to dispose of in the constitutional legislative ways. Examples are the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) established respectively in 1934 and 1970. The latter signed into law by a Republican president.

The NLRB is charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices and the EPA is charged with protecting human health and the environment (clean air and water). On their face one would think that these agencies are all virtue and no sin.

But to the far right these agencies are evil incarnate; stunting economic growth and encumbering and smothering our businesses with a myriad of regulations. Under the mantle of free trade and a libertarian bent towards self-regulation (actually no regulations) they have strategize a relentless campaign of undoing agencies and/or laws run counter to their philosophy of government.

And the GOP has embarked on a multi-pronged strategy proving that they can walk and chew gum at the same time. Away from the federal level in well over twenty states there is a campaign to install right to work laws, which mean in essence that employees cannot be compelled to join a union even in a shop that has voted to unionize. In other states, such as California, there is a serious movement to outlaw the automatic deduction of union dues from employee paychecks. These efforts are directed at weakening the power of unions long a Democratic Party bastion.

There are two techniques or methods being employed by the GOP to nullify, what is in their eyes, undesirable legislation. They come under the newly coined labels of Legislative Capture and Legislative Arbitrage.

Legislative Capture
Legislative Capture is played in several ways. Primary among them is the complete withholding or the allocation of insufficient funds to a targeted agency or department. Thus not allowing them to perform their mandated job. So that an agency remains in force but they are simply unable to do their job. This is an abstract form of starvation, or as Grover Norquist, conservative activist and lobbyist famously quipped  "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Or as my favorite blogger, Margaret Philpot, recently said, “Just small enough to crawl into my uterus.”

Other tactics employed to “capture” laws that are disliked is to “salt” the boards or senior positions with conservatives who are instructed to do nothing at minimum, or actively thwart or delay the implementation of any actions. The extensive use of the filibuster in the Senate has gone from being used primarily to prevent “activist” judges from reaching the bench or limiting unacceptable appointees to the administrative branch, to withholding confirmation of any and all nominated individuals for office. Thus the only way left to an administration to make appointments is to use the recess appointment power given to the President under the constitution.

To obviate the recess appointment the Republicans have resorted to the ploy of having a Senator or two gavel the Senate into session every three days or so for a few minutes, so as to have that body remain in continuous session and deprive the President of this appointment right. This has called into question President Obama’s recent appointment of three members of the NLRB (which by law could not operate without a quorum of at least three members and was limping along with two) and the head of the Consumer Protection Agency established under the Dodd-Frank Act that is high on the GOP hit list.

The frustration of Mr. Obama in having spent three years attempting not to disrespect the GOP legislators and find an accommodation has resulted in his abandoning his attempt to reason with the Party of No!. He moved on his appointments in spite of the Republican claim that the Senate is not in recess. In doing this the President has been castigated by a former Attorney General Edwin Meese, numerous GOP legislators and the chattering class opinionators such as Rush Limbaugh who said that he has “pissed” on the constitution.

Legislative Arbitrage
The second tactic in the Republican war on all that is legislatively evil is to approach an administrative individual or agency with the threat that a continuous barrage of legislative hearings and legal challenges will encumber them. They are threatened with a small army of highly paid council. The agency thus is threatened with the entanglement of continuous and expensive legal battles that will consume their resources and divert their attention from the business at hand. This threat, they are told, will not be carried out if the agency modifies their rules according to the guidelines proposed by the GOP.

Make no bones about it, these tactics are nothing more or less than a perversion of the Democratic process. While they may not be illegal in the purest sense of the word, they are a violation of the spirit of the law.

As with the war on terror that has become a conflict without end, the “game” of politics has become a continuous war. Not an acceptable tension between two parties with different visions of the role of government and with a unified aim of collectively governing a great nation as it has been in the past. This “game without end” is seeing our democracy eroded and perverted by a party who cannot accept any setback to their agenda and vision of government.

We are fast becoming little more than a banana republic and a laughing stock, all for the dubious honor of a recalcitrant conservative party pushing it’s agenda over common sense. To say that the art of compromise is nonexistent is to under state the situation. Compromise has become a pejorative, and warfare has replaced governing.

The GOP will gladly accept a dysfunctional legislative branch that they have literally tied into knots and thus is not able to perform its constitutional role. That this is seen as a victory in the game of politics is more than sad. But politics is not a game; it is a deadly serious process that directly affects the lives of us, its citizens and indirectly the rest of the world.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes Deadly Serious, It's Called "Taking Over." (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yosef 52, ColoTim, marina, salmo

    They've also begun capturing the election outcomes through extreme voter suppression and gerrymandering.

    And all of these things are bolstered and advanced by their captured judiciary.

    Reports of their death via demographic collapse are greatly exaggerated.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 12:30:39 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for your comment (0+ / 0-)

      Suppression and gerrymandering are pre rather than post legislative actions. And yes they are equally pernicious and are as old as the hills.

      I was referring to not only a post legislative action but a relatively new approach to skew the law to one side.

  •  And, unfortunately, too many Democrats let (0+ / 0-)

    them do precisely this - supporting the Republican filibusters by not doing away with them (the Republicans have said they'd do away with filibusters if they ever got the chance).  It supports and in fact proves the case that Democrats are wimps, where Republicans are strong and resolute.  What I'd give for someone like LBJ to steer Congress in a progressive direction.

    •  Thanks for your note (0+ / 0-)

      Rather than wimps think how this would affect the Democrats if and when the GOP regains control of the Senate. It is this fear that has held up Reid and others from the nuclear option.

      I would opt for a very limited review of federal judges, cabinet heads and ambassadors - not the literally thousands of low level administration posts currently requiring advice and consent.

  •  They call us terrorists? (0+ / 0-)

    I believe they are acting like an organized crime group. RICO them.

    Or, surely, somewhere in the dustbins of history we must have some laws applicable to the crimes they're committing.

  •  Conservatives/the GOP don't believe in democracy (0+ / 0-)

    They will use it as a stamp or imprimatur for their actions, but they do not believe in the fundamental basis for it; equality. All of these people believe in some sort of aristrocacy of which they are a merely a member.

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 01:41:59 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for your note (0+ / 0-)

      They believe in their brand of democracy.

      I am reprinting the latest from Gin and Tacos where Ed (an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Midwestern Liberal Arts University) discusses exactly this point:

      ON PRINCIPLE
      Posted in Quick Hits  on July 3rd, 2013 by Ed
      There is a great phrase in the textbook I currently assign for Public Opinion that captures one of the most vexing problems with the American electorate – Americans "endorse, but do not demonstrate, democratic basics." That's an elegant way of saying that nearly every piece of evidence we have based on previous research suggests that Americans don't have principles, politically speaking, but tend to think they do. For example, they will state in interviews and on surveys that they are strong supporters of the 1st Amendment. And then they start listing off the exceptions – the people who should not have free speech, freedom of religion, etc. The idea of a principle as an abstract idea that we consider integral to our belief systems and guides our attitudes toward new information…that just doesn't exist. We trust the institutions of government (and believe they should be strengthened) based on which ones are controlled by our preferred faction. We oppose the Senate using the filibuster, until they do it to block something we don't like. We are staunch believers in free speech, except you shouldn't be able to criticize the government during wartime.

      This phrase keeps coming to mind when I look at the puzzling public response to Edward Snowden, to re-hash yesterday's topic. Is he a hero? Is he a traitor? Should he be punished or feted? The pioneering work of Zaller and Feldman in public opinion stresses that reasonable people hold "competing considerations" on most subjects – in other words, depending on the context and how I phrase the question, you might reasonably tell me that he's a hero today and a traitor tomorrow. Part of our intense confusion with this NSA scandal – Who are we supposed to be mad at? Whose fault is it? When George W. Bush and Barack Obama agree, won't our heads explode? He did a good thing but he also broke the law! – is that we don't really believe in an underlying principle here. We're not mad that the government is spying; we're mad that the government is spying on us. We've recently all but begged the government to wipe its ass with the 4th Amendment…but to spy on them, not on us.

      In short, violating other people's rights is totally cool with most Americans, pending the conditioning effect of which party controls the process at a given moment. We appear to be angry because the government has violated the implicit agreement we made in the wake of 9/11 – do whatever possible to make us feel safe, but do it to The Terrorists. Brown ones, especially. Nothing about the reaction to Snowden suggests that we think the government shouldn't be listening to phone calls or recording data about emails and internet usage. We're just outraged that it's happening to us. Conducting surveillance in a manner that ignores all basic constitutional rights is fine, as long as it isn't done to Hard Working Americans or whatever euphemism you prefer for old white people who vote.

  •  that strategy depends on a well coordinated and (0+ / 0-)

    motivated and disinformed constituency - the talk radio constituency, most recently renamed the tea party.

    every step of the obstruction, from the local to national level, requires a constituency the bought (and or looney) politicians and helpful media can point to enable them.

    the primary and most effective tool for creating those made-to-order constituencies, to motivate them with lies and distortions, and to coordinate them, has been the talk radio monopoly.

    and it has been successful the last 25 years because the left has ignored it.

    when a carnival barker shows up on the neighborhood corner calling you (dems, liberals, progressives) a liar and thief and whore and your ideas treasonous and you let him do that for 25 years, it can get bad.

    that's why their nullification works.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:50:21 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for your note (0+ / 0-)

      I could not agree more - the liberal establishment was slow to respond to the wrong-wing talk radio tsunami. However, this movement goes back to the Goldwater loss in 1964. The Democratic victory was so one sided and embarrassing to the GOP that a small group of very wealthy conservatives established a war chest which funded conservative think tanks. This was the seminal point for the long road back for the GOP.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site