By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The lengthy shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security has been prolonged by disagreements over funding for immigration enforcement agencies. President Trump’s executive orders to pay DHS workers are deemed illegal, sidestepping Congress’s power of the purse. A recent Senate resolution to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection for three years through reconciliation avoids a filibuster but signals a Republican acknowledgment of likely electoral losses. This move, alongside the administration’s diversion of funds for deportation, highlights a pattern of executive overreach and a disregard for the traditional appropriations process, fueled by the Senate filibuster.
Read the original article here
It feels as though the very institution meant to be the bedrock of our democracy, Congress, has largely faded into the background, becoming a shadow of its intended power. The founding fathers, in their wisdom, specifically vested Congress with the “power of the purse” to act as a crucial check on executive overreach, a safeguard against unchecked authority. Yet, we witness administrations that seem to disregard established laws, diverting funds for initiatives without meaningful legislative challenge. When Congress fails to hold these actions accountable, it’s difficult not to see this as a worrying shift towards a less democratic form of governance.
To suggest Congress has *become* almost totally irrelevant might misrepresent the situation; perhaps it’s more accurate to say Congress has allowed itself to reach this point. This decline hasn’t been a sudden event but a gradual erosion, a result of decades of deliberate choices. Legislators have, by and large, chosen to abdicate their constitutionally delegated powers. There’s an irony in the notion that it’s often easier for them to maintain their positions and avoid difficult votes and explanations if they simply don’t engage in the substantive work of governing. Campaigning, it seems, becomes far simpler when one doesn’t have to defend complex legislative decisions.
The current state of affairs, where authoritarian rule or what some describe as fascism, can flourish without the need for a robust and active Congress, highlights a fundamental problem. Such systems often eschew the meticulous processes of investigation, debate, and voting that are the hallmarks of representative democracy. Instead, power consolidates, driven by whim and personal financial gain, rather than by facts or a constitutional framework. The desire for increased domestic and international military power, often translated into a pursuit of total control, becomes paramount, with any impediment, like a functioning Congress, viewed as an obstacle.
This erosion of congressional relevance hasn’t happened overnight. It’s a cumulative effect, with each preceding presidency contributing, in some measure, to the weakening of checks and balances. While specific administrations might be more readily identified as paving the way for current authoritarian tendencies, the groundwork has been laid over a considerable period. The current perception of Congress as a largely ineffective body, even when one party controls both chambers, speaks volumes. The question arises: what are they truly doing beyond enjoying the perks of office, like free healthcare, frequent vacations, and insider trading opportunities? It’s a life that appears remarkably detached from the everyday struggles of the people they are supposed to represent.
The influence of wealthy donors and a carefully orchestrated plan by billionaires have significantly contributed to this decline. The goal, for some, has been to foster a dysfunctional Congress, a situation explicitly acknowledged and embraced by certain political factions. The strategy has been to block initiatives, accelerate the reliance on executive orders, and ultimately push for a “unitary executive” with vast, unchecked power. This dynamic allows members of Congress to largely disengage from their legislative duties, absolving themselves of responsibility.
Furthermore, there’s an acknowledgment that deliberately vague legislation has been crafted, with the explicit intention that the Supreme Court would then interpret these laws in ways favorable to a particular political agenda. This represents a conscious surrender of congressional power. When a candidate can run for president on a platform of dictatorial rule and secure significant electoral support, it underscores a broader societal issue. The electorate’s participation – or lack thereof – plays a crucial role. A nation that allows a significant portion of its citizens to either vote for such a vision or remain apathetic to its rise is on a perilous path.
Living in a country with true democracy and the rule of law requires an informed, intelligent, and decent electorate. When Congress operates in a system where the rule of law is not respected by those in power, its relevance diminishes rapidly. This trajectory, some argue, leads directly to a fascist state. The perception that legislators are beholden to a small group of wealthy individuals, bowing to their demands without independent thought, further corrodes public trust and diminishes congressional standing.
Historically, checks and balances within government were designed to function through the self-interest of individual branches. However, the current challenge seems to be a lack of a check on the power of political parties themselves. Elections are, in theory, that check, but their integrity and accessibility are also subjects of concern. When the very institutions designed to uphold the law and its limits fail to act, particularly when faced with executive overreach, their irrelevance becomes starkly apparent. The inaction of bodies like the Supreme Court, when it fails to step in and enforce established legal boundaries, contributes significantly to this perception.
The notion that Congress has only *recently* become irrelevant is perhaps an understatement. The seeds of this decline were sown long ago. The phenomenon of “blackmail and bribery” is cited as a significant factor in compromising the integrity and effectiveness of legislators. The idea that “almost” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the phrase “almost totally irrelevant” suggests a deeper, more pervasive issue. When a Republican-controlled Congress is seen to be actively contributing to this irrelevance, it raises questions about accountability and motive.
A portion of Congress seems to be suffering from a form of “Stockholm Syndrome,” aligning themselves with actions that undermine their own constitutional authority. The willingness of Congress, over decades, to cede its power to the executive branch is not accidental; it is by design. The executive branch has mastered the art of circumventing the “power of the purse” through manufactured emergencies or the manipulation of existing funds, with Congress offering little more than vocal protestations. The checks and balances that were once the foundation of our system are, for many, a distant memory.
The call for Congress to pass a law reasserting its relevance, while well-intentioned, highlights the futility of such an endeavor if key actors, like the Department of Justice, simply ignore it. When legislators are unable to answer fundamental questions about their purpose and the value they provide to their constituents, it signifies a profound disconnect. The representation of corporate interests and the advancement of personal connections over public service are frequently cited reasons for this abdication of duty.
The argument that Congress has *chosen* its irrelevance is a recurring theme. This isn’t a force of nature; it’s a consequence of deliberate actions and inactions. While it’s easy to succumb to cynicism, the upcoming election presents an opportunity to reclaim the power that has been ceded to the executive. The narrative that these “awful men” are an inevitable part of the political landscape is a dangerous one that can lead to complacency. Looking at examples of countries that have resisted similar trends offers a glimmer of hope.
The idea that Congress is “setting fire to the house before they get evicted” during a period of potential change in power suggests a destructive, rather than constructive, approach to governance. A new Congress, theoretically, should possess the capacity and the will to reclaim the powers that have been surrendered over the years. This includes the Supreme Court, which also has a role to play in re-establishing constitutional boundaries. The overarching sentiment is that Congress, through its own choices and decades of willingly relinquishing authority, has engineered its own diminished status, with the current consequences being starkly visible.