Biden’s two big obstacles | TheArticle

“Well, here’s hoping it’ll be all over soon. Biden is doing his best to steer a delicate path between Progressives who would like ‘Medicare for All’ and moderates/independents who have no

desire to lose their existing insurance, rotten and expensive though it may be. The real issue is whether the Democrats will be able, come the time, to implement any of their policies?

The first obstacle is that they need to win four additional Senate seats to take control of the upper chamber — not so easy when you realise how skewed the Senate is. Wyoming, with a

population of less than one million, and other rural small states, has two Senators to elect, as does California with a population of just under 40 million. The more urbanised States, which

typically support federal government programs, are grossly under-represented. And not all Senate seats are up for election this year; senators serve for six years. If Republicans retain

control of the Senate, under majority leader Mitch McConnell, then we are looking at another four years of gridlock and blocked legislation. So watch out for the results in Arizona,

Colorado, Maine and North Carolina.

The second obstacle is far worse, though slow acting — the Supreme Court. In what I call a normal country, parliament debates and passes legislation which then becomes the law of the land;

if you, the voter, do not like this legislation then, when the time comes, throw out the representatives and elect a different set. The ability to do this gives democracy the edge over any

other political system.

Unfortunately, the US Constitution means things are a little different. An excellent example is the precarious fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as “Obama Care”. This

health care insurance legislation was originally passed by the Democrats, after a huge struggle (won by one vote in the Senate). It benefits at least 20 million people by enabling them to

have subsidised health insurance. After the Senate passed into Republican hands there were about 50 attempts to repeal the law.

The ACA survived, although it was modified by the removal of the individual mandate. Everyone lacking health insurance — private, public, whatever — had to pay a small fee to help support

the costs of this provision. Congress cancelled this unpopular mandate. Certain Republican states which did not want to expand Medicaid — the program for the really poor — took the informal

mandate to the courts, claiming it was unconstitutional and won.

How can that be? Article 1 of the Constitution, section 8, defines federal powers at some length: Congress can collect taxes, coin money, build roads, and establish rules for naturalisation

and so on, lots of good stuff. However, you will not be surprised to learn that this venerable document does not mention the regulation of health care insurance. Constitutional Originalists,

judges who think all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding “at the time it was adopted”, believe that healthcare questions devolve to the

States. Chief Justice John Roberts saved the ACA a few years ago by declaring that the mandate is the same as a tax, so it falls under Article 1. But with the mandate eliminated, that

argument is no longer valid.

All Democrats and fair-thinking people are outraged by Trump’s recent nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell refused to even consider Merrick Garland, who was

nominated by Obama nine months before the 2016 elections. Now a Republican Senate have used Trump’s last days to push Barrett onto the Supreme Court, replacing the progressive Ruth Bader

Ginsberg, because they had the votes to do it.

Why do we care? Because Barrett is a dedicated conservative and, like her mentor Judge Scalia, an Originalist and a Textualist — someone who ignores the intention of the law, the problem it

was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding former legal judgements. The logical conclusion of this is that, if the original document of 1787 does not mention a particular

power of the federal government, then it doesn’t exist. The Senate held four days of hearings with Barrett, but it was pretty pointless because she refused to give her views on anything,

including previously decided cases. This got tedious: all the non-answers were along the lines of “I can’t say because somebody might predict how I would rule”. And, of course, she refused

to express any views on climate change, which she described as a controversial political question.

Her conservative views will also be expressed in opposition to LBGTQ rights and environmental legislation. Her appointment to the Court will give a conservative majority of 6-3. The

situation for Biden and the Democrats (if they win both houses) might be compared to that of Roosevelt in the 1930s when he was struggling to enact progressive legislation, such as social

security.

How did we end up in this situation? Congress has become very dysfunctional and has hardly passed any legislation in the past four years, apart from Trump’s big tax cut. The Constitution

(Article 1, section 8) states quite clearly that Congress shall “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”. Yet it seems

increasingly that Congress prefers not to make any laws and to wait for the courts to decide critical issues such as gay marriage or immigration laws. There always exists a large minority of

people or organisations who prefer to file a court case when they are unhappy with some outcome. This is not a happy way to run a country.

Personally, I think the social networks such as Facebook and Twitter share much of the blame. It used to be that opposing political sides got together informally and hammered out a

compromise. That useful activity does not occur anymore, because the mere fact that somebody was talking to the other side would get out. There would be cries of rage from the extremists on

both sides.

Is anything fixable? It would take very radical action and a willingness to enact another couple of Amendments to the Constitution. State’s Electors in the Electoral College matter more than

the popular vote for President in the election. They should be abolished as an anachronistic relic from the 18th century. The Senate composition should be changed to more closely represent

the size and population of each state. For example, each state gets one Senator plus an additional number of Senators based on the size of the state.

Can you imagine, presidential candidates hardly visit, or care about, the issues of California’s nearly 40 million people while they go to Ohio twice a week? What kind of a democracy is

that?

By proceeding, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

If an account exists for this email address, you will shortly receive an email from us. You will then need to:

Please note, this link will only be valid for 24 hours. If you do not receive our email, please check your Junk Mail folder and add info@thearticle.com to your safe list.