Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Ben Nelson, John Kyl, Barack Obama, and corruption
|
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Ben Nelson, John Kyl, Barack Obama, and corruption
Sandy Levinson
If any single event contributed to the electoral fiasco for the Democrats, it was the shameful (and shameless) "bargaining" with Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, in which he, in effect, sold his vote for an indefensible preference for his home state. (It was, of course, stripped from the final bill, but the damage was done in terms of the cost to the "integrity" of the bill.) The deal was widely condemned at the time, by people from all sides of the political spectrum, as exemplifying the corruption within the modern sausage-process of legislation, particularly within the ever-egregious and indefensible(in terms of 21st century democratic theory) United States Senate.
Comments:
If not, then it is indefensible to bloat the budget in order to purchase Kyl's vote.
Doesn't this depend upon how important the treaty is? If it is, for example, a matter of life and death, then, when a holdup man says, "your money or your life," you don't, like Jack Benny, think it over for long.
"Why aren't Tea Party people at least as angry at this as at earmarks, which are relatively small beer in comparison to the billions wasted on unnecessary military expenses?"
While earmarks are 'small beer' in relation to the over all federal budget, they're important because they're the bribes which are paid to get individual members to vote for the larger expenditures. Another question arises. This treaty was signed back in April or May. It's suddenly urgent that it be voted on in the next few weeks? Only because of the fear that the new Senate won't ratify. Do I really have to point out that, from a standpoint of democratic legitimacy, "It might not pass if the newly elected members were voting on it!" is the absolute worst excuse for bringing something up during a lame duck session? We already know this isn't urgent, because if it were, it would have been voted on months ago. It should not be brought up until January, whatever it's fate.
Principle versus Principal, or vice versa? If Kyl's vote is to be bought, might not other Senators use their non-Second Amendment arms for their alms?
By the Bybee ($%&#*@), the Jack Benny anecdote is inappropriate as Kyl does not have a loaded gun. If the Jack Benny robber were exposed to the public via TV or other media, he/she might have second thoughts about his/her threat, what with all those witnesses. So let's put the spotlight on Kyl.
The difference is that Ben Nelson extracted concessions that benefited his state only and not the union as a whole. While some may think Kyle's priorities are wrong, it doesn't seem that he is pushing them to benefit Arizona only.
Sandy:
The outrage over the Cornhusker kickback was that the Feds would only reimburse Nebraska for the spike in Mediaid costs that Obamacare would impose on the states. You had a twofer there - the anger at Obamacare for imposing the costs in the first instance and Nebraska's special and arguably unconstitutional exemption. The negotiations between the GOP and Obama over START involve a compromise of a disagreement over national security policy. No bad policy and no special exemptions.
To Shag: What if exposure does not prompt Kyl to withdraw his threat?
To Ian: A senator could have illegitimate motivations other than benefiting his state. What if Kyl is pushing his priorities solely to benefit a campaign contributor, or solely to make a Tea Party challenge to his reelection less likely, or solely to hurt the nation in the hope that Obama will be blamed for it?
Henry asks:
"To Shag: What if exposure does not prompt Kyl to withdraw his threat?" We revive the Cold War, reheat the Iraq War, intensify the Afghan War, and bomb Iran and North Korea. Instead of START (with reciprocal inspections of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals), we STOP, because the Republicans don't like Pres. Obama (and apparently America's national interests and safety). To Henry: If Kyl's vote is to be bought, might not other Senators use their non-Second Amendment arms for their alms?
Shag:
Nice rendition of Administration talking points. In reality, our nuclear stockpile is aging and as it does so the chances of failure of the weapons increases. You can make up for this increased risk of failure by firing more than one warhead at a target, but START reduces the number of warheads and the ability to utilize redundancy. Thus, the GOP is using the ratification of START as leverage to gain concessions on nuclear force modernization designed to increase reliability. These negotiations have been going on for the past two years and are not some stunt to embarrass Obama during a lame duck session. Indeed, the GOP has been Obama's most reliable source of votes in Congress on national security matters as the left bailed on Afghanistan.
If Kyl's vote is to be bought, might not other Senators use their non-Second Amendment arms for their alms?
Yes, of course. I do not deny that capitulating to a holdup man sets a dangerous precedent. But, if lack of the treaty would be life-threatening (and I take no position on that), then Kyl is the equivalent of a holdup man and Obama must capitulate.
Don't think that incident with Ben Nelson was that notable in the scheme of things. And, logrolling to get legislation through is as American as apple pie. It's not "corruption" as I would define it.
It is somewhat different when the thing being "sold" is a treaty (domestic legislation by nature balances interests, sometimes via goodies; treaties less so) and I'm not aware that Kyl is the 67th vote. But, if Kyl is selling principle for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver, and didn't Nelson eventually reject the goodie?, yes, he should be targeted. If there are enough votes except for him and his vote is held captive for goodies, as with McConnell's "send some troops home to help the party out" advice, it warrants a bit of outrage. I say a bit since it's nothing new or anything.
I also think Brett has something of a point with the "bribe" remark but others might argue that you have an overall budget and one part of legislating is for the representatives of the people to apply parts of it for the needs of their constituents. We can have unelected bureaucrats do that instead. If you trust them, fine.
If legislators will be able to be "bribed" with the 'small beer' at stake in earmarks, they can be "bribed" some other way, including home judges or some aspect of legislation that helps them in some way. It's small beer in the "bribery" field too.
Henry says:
"But, if lack of the treaty would be life-threatening (and I take no position on that), then Kyl is the equivalent of a holdup man and Obama must capitulate." And how many Republican clowns - strike that - clones of Kyl in the Senate become the equivalent of more holdup men/women to whom Obama must capitulate? And our former Backpacker chimes in: "Indeed, the GOP has been Obama's most reliable source of votes in Congress on national security matters as the left bailed on Afghanistan." So the GOP thinks that America's national security would improve if there are no inspection rights to check on nuclear arsenals of Russia? I can understand our former Backpacker's "professional" concerns with MADD on his economic situation but not with respect to MAD getting under control. Apparently the GOP wishes to expand the Senate's nuclear option internationally. Aside to Henry: I'm not lumping you in with our former Backpacker who, unlike you, seems to take the position that the lack of a treaty would not be life threatening such that the GOP should leverage this situation in its dealings with Obama to keep him a one-term President.
I'm with Joe in not thinking this is all that much of a problem.
Basically, buying off individual lawmakers is endemic to representative legislatures. It's only a problem when (a) there's a vote (tyrannies don't suffer from this problem); and (b) an individual voter can be reasonably sure he's one of the last few necessary (large groups have no way to know). Thus, there's no way to eliminate it. History bears this out. "Deals" have been made since the invention of Parliament; David Hume was the first to point out that this form of "corruption" was what actually made the system work. In the US, the very first "deal" involved the location of D.C. as a trade-off for assumption of state War debts. It's a time-honored insincerity. Embrace it.
Shag from Brookline said...
BD: "Indeed, the GOP has been Obama's most reliable source of votes in Congress on national security matters as the left bailed on Afghanistan." So the GOP thinks that America's national security would improve if there are no inspection rights to check on nuclear arsenals of Russia? This is not a particularly time sensitive issue as Russia cannot afford to build new categories of nukes which need to be monitored. The Obama Administration can agree with the Russians to continue mutual inspections while the negotiations are completed. If not, then Obama may want to put compromise with the GOP on the front burner for the first time in two years. It would be good practice for 2011.
The Soviets could not afford but did spend much regarding its military arsenal that led to the end of the Cold War via bankruptcy. Russia might spend again if it feels threatened, this time buoyed with its energy revenues that can hold Eastern Europe hostage. Our former Backpacker seems to be suggesting that America can afford mucho spending to update its nukes arsenal. But how would Russia react to this? Would Russia continue some of its accommodations relative to NATO, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc, that seem to benefit the U.S.? After all, it wouldn't cost Russia very much to close certain convenient access means that might result in significant expense and inconvenience to America and its allies. What makes our former Backpacker confident that Russia would readily agree to mutual inspections while, as our former Backpacker suggests, Pres. Obama negotiates with the GOP on START? Is Russia expected to cowtow to the Tea Party? I don't think so, just like Colorado did not. What is time sensitive to the GOP (and its CO tea bag holder) is making sure Pres. Obama is not reelected in 2012 and START is their means to STOP that (to be followed by overturning Brown v. Board of Education). Yes, the GOP is transparent.
Shag from Brookline said...
The Soviets could not afford but did spend much regarding its military arsenal that led to the end of the Cold War via bankruptcy. The USSR was spending approximately 30% of its GDP on defense and was supporting a far more massive nuclear arsenal with new delivery systems coming out on an ongoing basis. Thus, Reagan's dictum: "Trust, but verify." Russia might spend again if it feels threatened, this time buoyed with its energy revenues that can hold Eastern Europe hostage. Russia might build up its military again even if it does not feel threatened. However, it cannot afford to do so now. America can afford mucho spending to update its nukes arsenal. Actually, the reported negotiations involve testing the arsenal. The Dems do not want actual tests and there is a great deal of controversy whether simulated tests are sufficient and how much to spend on them. But how would Russia react to this? I could give less than a damn how Russia reacts to our maintenance of our weapons systems. We are shrinking and not building up our stockpile. Would Russia continue some of its accommodations relative to NATO, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc, that seem to benefit the U.S.? These accommodations benefit the Russians more than the US since they are the ones with restive Muslim populations bordering those regions. What makes our former Backpacker confident that Russia would readily agree to mutual inspections while, as our former Backpacker suggests, Pres. Obama negotiates with the GOP on START? These inspections have been ongoing for years and give the Russians mutual access to our weapons.
One would think that inspections are more important to America than to Russia, since Americans (except GOP-ers?) can understand the MAD concept and Trust but Verify. Consider that America and its allies had inspections of Iragi facilities BEFORE the Iraqi invasion providing assurances that Iraq did NOT have WMD. OOPS! Bush/Cheney and the Neocons did not accept the inspection reports and what the hell, invaded Iraq anyway, and after MISSION ACCOMPLISHED could not find WMD. So the GOP and its War Hawks don't need no stinkin' inspections. (Meanwhile, it is quite, MADD-ening for our former Backpacker economically in CO, even with its decline in tea drinking post 2010 elections. Perhaps our former Backpacker will BUCK up and beat the TOM-TOMS for 2012. But what, prey [sic] tell, happens to his tome on Pres. Obama if reelected?)
So I would counsel Pres. Obama not to get MAD at the GOP, but do what we do here in MA: Get Even.
"I'm really not interested in a debate as to whether it is a good idea to spend the money.... My point is that if we stipulate it is necessary, then President Obama should be supporting it, period. If not, then it is indefensible to bloat the budget in order to purchase Kyl's vote."
Perhaps so. But can't we just stipulate, instead, that reasonable people might disagree about whether the spending is necessary? And that one might be on the fence about whether the spending is necessary in isolation, but have no reservations if it in effect also subsidizes the passage of the New START treaty? That would seem to me to be the charitable interpretation of Obama's actions: he's not sure whether the spending is necessary, but doesn't find it repugnant, so the New START treaty plus the spending is a package deal that makes sense. (And if you reverse the argument, you get the charitable version of Kyl's actions.)
James P. Rubin (a former Clintonite) has an interesting Op-Ed in yesterday's NYTimes (11/22/10) "Farewell to the Age of the Treaty" about a legislative alternative to the treaty process requiring 67 Senate votes, that would involve both the House and the Senate. Rubin doesn't explain why the incoming House controlled by GOPers would go along. But the nuclear debate might extend to House members all of whom come up for reelection in two years.
"Ben Nelson, John Kyl, Barack Obama, and corruption"
_____________________________________ Hello UK students!!!! Register before Jan 15thand get 1000 pounds student aid. http://www.eurocallingcards.com/econet/
Ivan Eland of The Independent Institute has a response (11/24/10) to Rubin's Op-Ed titled "New START Is Worthy, but Let's Not Violate the Constitution to Save It."
Post a Comment
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |