The insidious view: Lets blame the Constitution for this one!

With the polls showing that the majority population blames the House of Representative and the faction of the Tea Party Republicans for the government shutdown, there are others who are pointing the finger to the documents that founded this nation as to blame for. To begin with I hope the particular tone of this article, from the blog, Think Progress, does not reach any major news media outlets as to render it as "news worthy" material. If it does, I will be more than happy to literally throw the "book of ignorance"at them.

In the article titled Don't Like the Shutdown? Blame The Constitution, a blogger by the name of Ian Millhiser from Think Progress published a piece on September 30, 2013. The article argues how the Constitution provided the means to cause the shutdown. Providing that we should look to other countries, like Canada, for thier wisdom and knowledge on preventing future government shutdowns; we should emulate a parliamentary system in place of our current democracy. He goes on to describe that Canada faced a budget crisis, much like the US, and was able to resolve the crisis by holding an election in order to resolve the impending doom that was at Canada's doorstep. Based on their "Parliamentary Democracy", the chief executive (president) can be efficiently replaced by the parliament based on a election to equalize disputes and arguments. Faced with a budget crisis, the president can be voted out by congress so that a deadlock can be averted to allow life to go on. One might argue that this would be a very good way of solving future issues in the US. Once faced with a crisis, congress can throw their weight around and put someone in control to favor their argument over the president polices.

The House of Representative, which are controlled by the Republicans, would not pass the fiscal year budget without first coming to an agreement between the senate and the President to defund the ACA (the Affordable Care Act / "Obamacare"). With the Senate and President not willing to cave in to the republicans side of the vote, a dead lock occurred and the spending budget was not passed once October 1st hit, causing the impending government shutdown.

However, the US is established by a sitting president that exercises a "Presidential Democracy". In the Constitution, it is set in stone that elected officials will have 2, 4, or 6 year terms. 2 year terms for the House for each state, 4 year terms for the president, and 6 year terms for the senators from each state. These terms are set forth in the Constitution, so that there can be an equal power shift from the state representation to the national (big government) representation of the country. Looking back at history, the balance of powers had flaws generated in the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist took part in argument as to what was best for the problems they were facing after the Revolutionary War. They sure as hell did not want to go back to a parliamentary system where one side has more power then the other. A better constructed argument for this article could have been based on the process and need for an amendment to be put in place of blaming the Constitution as whole for the latest government shutdown.

A solution to Immigration Reform

In Fixing Immigration From the Ground Up The New York Times published an opinion from the editorial board on October 6, 2013. Among the predicaments that face this nation, the question is asked can California set a conclusive example to nudge the national government to move forward in immigration reform? Back in June of 2013 the democratically controlled senate passed a bill for immigration reform. However, this bill was unpopular in the republican controlled house. The failed vote for a complimentary path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants forced congress back to the drawing board. The House contended that the enforcement of borders was the unfolding precedence in debate, while the senate favored an extension to a broader pathway for citizenship into the country.

California, which is home to an estimated 2.5 million immigrants, proposed a bill that was signed by the state. In hoping to spotlight California onto the national stage, Governor Brown contributed a solution in the form of a bill, titled The Trust Act. The Trust Act is meant to reproach Obama’s agenda and congresses idleness by making it harder for the US Customs and Border Protection agency to deport unauthorized California’s aliens. Trying to set a positive example for the rest of the nation, the governor’s goal was to “lessen the problems” by “protecting [the] civil rights and public safety” of a large population of California, who are non-violent criminals that “live outside the law”. Referring to illegal immigrants, as the subject, the product of The Trust Act set way for other bills and provisions that were also signed separately by the state of California.

On the agenda, California has enabled a pathway for certain immigrants to become licensed lawyers. Other items that have been introduced are issuing drivers licenses, opportunities to work as poll officials during an election, and a measure to allow immigrants to serve on juries. The opinion argues that, by expanding basic human rights while finding approachable solutions, California is on the leading edge of immigration reform. Even though a single state cannot fix immigration reform for the rest of the nation, it can be a start to press congress for an agreement to move forward on immigration reform.

I can admire the state for providing a solution to the problem facing immigration reform. However, the state of California is accomplishing, in my opinion, a short term fix that could lead to bigger problems. For instance, the state bills that would let immigrants drive, serve on juries, and work as polling officials in elections without obtaining a social security number to fulfill civic duties, scares me. A thing comes to mind that is not published in this opinion is the fact that one of the largest banks in the US came out to the public, a couple of years ago, saying that they would start accepting credit card applications without a social security number. As being insightful to the argument, the issue of being able to get credit to pay for transactions, or serving in basic traditional civic duties without a social security number can lead to bigger problems such as identity theft. By 2040 it is estimated that minority groups, once combined, will be the majority of the population within the borders of the United States.

I believe that we cannot ignore a predictable trend that in mere decades, immigrants and minorities will be the majority of the population. I recognize that the state of California is trying to provide  solutions to the nation and a stagnated congress on immigration reform; but before applying short term fixes to please a populace, the elected officials should look at the situation more closely to prevent overlooked problems that could arise in the future. For now we can see congress and the other branches of government trapped into a corner; with two sides brawling over a different policy that has split the nation on both sides of the fence. As for immigration reform, the subject remains in inactivity, even if the state of California moves towards solutions to prod a national government into action.