Is Congress becoming irrelevant?

When George W Bush announced loans to automakers from the TARP program, after Congress failed to pass a bailout, I asked the question why Congresspeople were praising the move. If the President can bypass Congress in something like this, why not bypass them altogether? Now, George Will is asking whether Congress has essentially become irrelevant for the foreseeable future of government.

Congress' marginalization was brutally underscored when, after Congress did not authorize $14 billion for General Motors and Chrysler, the executive branch said, in effect: Congress' opinions are mildly interesting, so we will listen very nicely -- then go out and do precisely what we want.

Friday the president gave the two automakers access to money Congress explicitly did not authorize. More money -- up to $17.4 billion -- than had been debated, thereby calling to mind Winston Churchill on naval appropriations: "The Admiralty had demanded six ships: the economists offered four: and we finally compromised on eight."

If the use of TARP funds is not challenged in the Supreme Court, then Congress will simply have given up and we may well be on our way to a dictatorship. Or at least an Empire.

California Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

Here in California we have a great process that allows us to keep our legislators in check. If we want a law and the legislature keeps dragging its feet, we can put it on the ballot, vote for it, and make it law. It's "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Back in March of 2000, California passed Proposition 22 which amended state law to read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California." 61.4% of the people who voted on the proposition voted yes. Unfortunately, since it is only law and not part of the Constitution, it is still subject to the courts. Well, the top court in California has had its say and has deemed the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. Now, I am against gay marriage, believing that, by definition, marriage is between one man and one woman, but I am also upset at how the will of the people were subverted by the courts. The system of checks and balances is a great thing... by having the courts able to declare a law unconstitutional, it is a check on the legislature. The problem I have is that the courts, instead of being "for the people" have decided to legislate from the bench not only overriding the people's will, but "creating law" as well - getting rid of the check and balance system. The next step for traditional marriage proponents will most likely have to be a constitutional amendment, which means more spending to "change" the law back to what it "is".

Information on Prop 22 taken from ProtectMarriage.com and the Official California Legislative Information site. Disclosure: ProtectMarriage.com is a former customer of my company prior to the sale of that part of our business.

Fighting Back Against Real ID

On May 11, 2005, the REAL ID Act was passed as part of a military spending bill. On March 2, 2007, enforcement was postponed to December 2009 and then again until 2011. What is the REAL ID Act? The theory is that it will tighten our borders and prevent another 9/11. One of the ways it attempts to do this is establish a national standard for driver's licenses / state identification cards and then establish a linked database. The problems with this act are numerous. First, the federal government is interfering with a state issue. Second, the federal government is not only mandating this, but requiring the states to foot the bill. Third, by linking the state databases together and having a national standard, we are basically at a national ID card - something that has been resisted because it brings to mind the idea of the Soviet Union and needing papers to travel from state to state. Fourth, it is wasteful spending in that most, if not all, of the 9/11 hijackers had valid ID. They would not have been flagged any differently than they were on that day. (Information about the REAL ID Act taken from Wikipedia.)

Unfortunately, my state, California has decided to go right along with the federal government. Montana, however, has led the charge in refusing to go along. Other states are also opposing the legislation. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that those who do not have a valid Real ID license (or other federally recognized ID such as a passport) will not be able to use their license as ID for federal purposes. This includes boarding airplanes without being subjected to increased security checks. The DHS is betting that citizens will complain to and blame their state governments. State governments are betting that citizens will agree with them and place the blame fully on the DHS. Citizens of these states will need to start providing alternative ID or be subjected to further security checks as of May 11, 2008. Not only will air travel be hindered, but you'll need a federal ID to "open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service."

I fear it's too late for California, but those in a state where there has not been major headway made can still contact your state leaders and push back against Real ID.

Update 1: Looks like there is some money available, but it basically amounts to pennies on the dollar.