New changes to the Senate present a striking change to congressional power.
Article Two, Section Two, Clause Two. “Provided two-thirds of the Senate concur, the President shall appoint Officers of the United States.” This is a constitutional clause dictating that the Senate must have a supermajority to confirm Presidential nominations to the Bureaucracy. However, it is clear that the significance of the Constitution, the backbone of our democracy and nation, is deteriorating. After stalemate negotiations with the Democrats on confirming President Trump’s nominees, Republicans recently invoked the “nuclear option”, a pathway that allows the GOP to lower the threshold for votes needed (from 66 to 53) to clear prospective cabinet members. This directly violates the Constitution. This change is not exclusive or temporary; it is permanent. The GOP directly contradicted and rewrote precedent with this invocation, and this will continue to have grave consequences for the nation long after the Trump administration is gone.
Contextualization
This is not the first time the nuclear option has been used in the Senate. According to the New York Times, Democrats first used this option to lower the 60 votes required to end the filibuster debate on the Obama Administration’s cabinet nominees. This action allowed them to speed up and confirm President Obama’s appointees. The filibuster is an important technique used for balancing out the powers of the majority and the minority in the Senate. Later, during the Trump Administration, Republicans used the same option to confirm three ultra-conservative SCOTUS justices. To understand the gravity of this situation, the Supreme Court in recent times has offered little explanation for overturning precedent, which is symptomatic of the broader trend of SCOTUS justices using their own political ideology to influence and inform the way that they interpret the law. However, this recent usage of the law with regard to presidential nominees has disastrous consequences, as it empowers the majority party to confirm nominees quickly, effectively, and with little conflict.
Recently, President Trump has appointed many bizarre, incompetent, and loyalist candidates (Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to name a few) to his cabinet, many of whom have drastically increased the power of the executive. For example, access to life-saving vaccines and healthcare procedures has been revoked, United States citizens have been deported without a fair trial, and the economy is in a significant decline. The Senate was meant to serve as a check against the executive branch and was supposed to represent the direct will of the people. A supermajority is intentionally quite difficult to obtain in the Senate, to ensure that candidates must demonstrate excellence and popularity across party lines, alongside their political qualifications. This safeguard ensures that only the best appointees take up positions in the bureaucracy, whose operations and functions directly influence the lives of all Americans. A troubling trend emerges: the balance of power within Congress is becoming increasingly unequal, allowing for more extreme decision-making. Now that this precedent has been completely ignored and rewritten, the executive has almost unchecked power to appoint whoever to the cabinet, and this effectively diminishes the liberty of the people.
Consequences
The power balance between the majority and the minority, so carefully crafted at the inception of our government, has now been broken. The Trump bureaucracy has been under increasing scrutiny by supporters due to his administration’s refusal to release the Epstein client list. This inaction makes it clear that the executive does not answer to the people, and neither does Congress. Instead, personal absolution and profit continue to be of highest importance, as was the case in 1776 and as is the case now. While this may have political consequences for Republicans, it also illustrates that the right of Americans to have a government answerable to them cannot exist. Leadership, responsibility, and respect, once guiding lights of a prosperous nation, are now vestiges of a state in their rearview mirror.
This change to precedent further polarizes the Senate, by having severe consequences for bipartisanship. Bipartisanship ensures that both parties are in support of a particular action, which means that it stands to benefit the most people (regardless of political ideology) and also ensures that majorities in Congress don’t have too much power by being able to easily pass laws and confirm appointees. Essentially, it’s meant to be difficult and not easy to get anything done. Bipartisanship ensures debate and dialogue among both sides of the aisle, which increases awareness of different political views and reasoning. This characterizes a democracy and promotes tolerance and understanding for differing points of view. However, now that only a simple majority is required to confirm nominees, there is less need for any discourse, and this allows for more hardline views with little consideration to the valid points and rationale for the opposing side. This polarization has long brought grief to the American public and is now being reflected in Congress and the rest of the United States government.
Intentions
At the surface level, it appears that the only intention behind this bold decision was simply to thrust President Trump’s nominees into official confirmations. However, in past years, Republicans had a track record of being the political minority (with this year being the exception). This decision could be a way to make it easier to pass controversial and unpopular changes to society, without laws. This comes at the expense of civic participation, civic liberty, and personal autonomy. To elaborate, the executive oversees many parts of American lives, from transportation to security to healthcare. Whether it is now or in the future, laws will always remain difficult to pass and political agendas near impossible to implement. Instead of enacting change through laws, dramatic societal change can be enacted through the executive. For example, a law banning COVID-19 vaccines for those not unpopular would be unpopular within congress. However, when a nominee such as Robert Kennedy Jr. becomes head of the CDC, political change can be enacted through changes in the administration of medication (which is under executive purview). It seems then, the President has almost unlimited and undemocratic power to infringe on the lives, health, happiness, and rights of the citizens.
Counteractions
Another relevant trend is Republicans constantly attempting to placate President Trump, due to fear of being primaried. When this threat is taken away, it’s possible for Republicans to be more responsive to the needs of their constituents, which entails making sure that quality of life doesn’t decline and that liberties are being protected. Responsiveness to the needs of the electorate is a hallmark of democracy. An example of this can be seen through community town halls, which have been especially disastrous for the GOP. Constituents arrive distressed and anguished at these town halls, and GOP representatives fail to answer their questions and address their concerns. Instead, representatives claim that these events are filled with “hijacking Democrats”. Some tow nhalls are cancelled altogether, in a flurry. Indeed, it is quite ominous that the actions of a singular executive (which, granted, are still constra\ined by the Constitution) can cause such extreme, long-lasting changes to the structure of the government. Throughout history, freedom has evolved, and power has increasingly shifted from royalty, factory owners, and majority demographics to citizens, workers, and minorities. Now, it is clear that power is now being reconsolidated back into the hands of the government, the majority, and the wealthy. When changes to election and primary financing and selection are enacted, outside influence can be diminished. However, due to the current state of the government, such vital changes are extremely unlikely.
A Harbinger for a Troubling Future
It appears then that the executive branch yields the most control, power, and influence, and the other two branches directly answer to it. Furthermore, the executive can be beholden to outside influence, such as corporations and foreign actors. The fact that the terms of the constitution count for so little, paired with the increasing discontent the general public holds towards the actions of the current administration, is a signal for many trying and sorrowful years ahead for the American experiment.
Featured Image Source: Wayground
