The Founders would've hated the GOP's plan to sabotage the Inflation Reduction Act
Anti-democratic shenanigans abound in the House.
Do you know why the Constitution was made? Because the Founders realized that the old American government — the Articles of Confederation — couldn’t get stuff done. They wanted the government to get stuff done.
Today’s Republicans … do not.
The House on Friday voted to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, whose main charm is not that it reduces inflation — it probably won’t, not by much — but that it addresses climate change in a serious way. Republicans didn’t just oppose the bill, though: They committed shenanigans.
Over half of the House voted by-proxy, which prolonged the bill’s passage by designating a certain member to cast in-person votes on behalf of absent lawmakers.
What’s up with that? Axios explains:
Republicans, led by members of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, plan to get "as many members as possible to vote by proxy" in order to deny Democrats a physical quorum, two senior Republican aides told Axios.
The bill would still pass, but Republicans hope a company affected by the tax provisions in the bill will then sue to challenge the law's constitutionality.
What Republicans are saying, then, is this:
Because we didn’t physically show up to oppose the bill — because we intentionally missed work — the Inflation Reduction Act should be ruled unconstitutional.
Like I said: Shenanigans.
Maybe it will work. With this Supreme Court, it seems like everything is up for grabs. But as Axios points out:
The Supreme Court in January declined to hear a challenge to proxy voting brought by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), leaving in place a lower court ruling that the House's ability to make its own rules under the Constitution's speech or debate clause is not subject to judicial review.
So there’s that. But here’s the thing: Republicans are sticking their collective thumb in the eyes of the people who made the Constitution.
In Federalist 581, James Madison made clear he didn’t want Congress doing shenanigans with quorum rules.
It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.
In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.
By playing games with the quorum, Republicans were trying to reverse the fundamental principle of free government.
One House vote isn’t the only example of such GOP antimajoritarianism, of course, and it can be said the Founders — who gave us the Electoral College — weren’t always consistent in their application of that “fundamental principle.” Democrats also do this stuff from time to time, it should be noted. But Republicans, who often position themselves as More Constitutional and More Founder-Loving Than Thou, are maybe a little bit riper for the hypocrisy charge. It’s just one more example of the GOP’s anti-democratic lean.
Listen up
This is, uh, an old hobbyhorse of mine.