Remember that hilarious Amadeus moment when Mozart's jaw drops, all excitement dashed when the Emperor belittles his latest tour de force as "a touch elaborate." Meaning "too long," since (absurdly) one can only hear "so many notes in . . . the course of an evening:"
EMPEROR: Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect.
MOZART: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?
EMPEROR: Well. There it is.
Today's pompously hidebound rightwing displays no such royal restraint, full of self-ordained zealots knowing exactly how to banish the curse of "too many laws." Just say null, except the trillions for defense, anti-terrorism, spying, and corporate subsidies. Or state-wise, impugn the evils of government except when imposing fundamentalist dogma that curbs abortion, marriage, and voting rights, plus rational drug laws.
What, lawmakers who write laws?
After all, inquisition commandos know full well just how many laws god-fearing folks can stand in the course of a season. Thus, sounding more like Justice (Slash and Burn) Scalia than the nation's pre-eminent lawmaker, Speaker Boehner fabricated this jaw-dropping spin for his do-nothing Congress: judge us not "by how many new laws we create" but "many laws we repeal." Uh huh. So much for the 18 Congressional powers designated by the Constitution, crowned with this mandate:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing  powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Oh, that inconvenient Constitution, again! How could Founders skip the infamous right to nullify, especially when no other voting options work. Certainly, control of purse strings reigns in secondary issues, but that's hardly befitting earthshaking Obamacare -- duly debated, passed, signed and approved by a rightwing Supreme Court? Don't monumental repeals, like Prohibition or voting rights for minorities, warrant "Constitutional amendment" treatment? And to add absurdity to bluster, Braggadocio Boehner, what awful laws has "your" Congress repealed? None. What great advances began in your caucus? None. House duplicity, meet infamy.
What, Constitutional Shutdowns?
Likewise, nowhere does the Constitution authorize Sen. Lee (R-Utah) "to shut down the federal government in order" to kill the curse he opposes, so he threatened this week. Nullification is his "last stop" against the Obama health care apocalypse. When does enough Senate indecency violate the unmistakable pledge favoring "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Senator, isn't chronic gridlock and the endless filibuster circus enough? Must roiling temper tantrums reign, too?
Why have such established approval procedures to pass a new bill if some minority of one can assassinate democratic governance? What justification gives a virtual Republican lynch mob the right to hang out the majority to dry? Is this blitzkrieg less destabilizing to law and order than infrequent terrorist strikes? Will miscreants who fall on their face then propose strikes and boycotts, even secession or armed rebellion? Does the Union rule, or are we rerunning 1861?
Impeaching the Anarchists
High time to consider impeaching elected insurgents for violating the spirit and letter of the American way, plus their own oaths of office. Winners enter Congress to govern, writing laws that solve real-world problems, not maliciously seed land mines to trump implementation. That way lies more than obstructionism, as Jonathan Chait subheads his "Anarchists of the House," the "Republican Congress is testing a new frontier of radicalism--governmental sabotage:"
1 | 2