Article link
Early Wednesday morning Republican legislators in Wisconsin passed legislation intended to limit incoming Democrat Tony Evers' power. Among the proposals were restrictions on early voting and measures to prevent the governor from banning guns in the state capitol without lawmakers' approval.
At a Christmas tree lighting ceremony on Tuesday, Governor Walker was booed and protestors held up signs reading "All I want for Christmas is Democracy" and "GOP Grinch Steals Democracy." A high school choir's songs were drowned out by chants from the audience.
During debate on Tuesday evening, doors were closed on the public as shouting protestors disrupted the debate.
Lame-duck sessions such as these are not uncommon. In 2010 the Democats held an unsuccessful lame-duck session in Wisconsin attempting to enact labor agreements. The proposals in Tuesday's session, however, are more drastic than in past cases.
Although I believe that this lame-duck session undermines democracy because it deliberately restricts Evers' abilities to enact his policies, I think it's a complicated issue that raises important questions, such as,
1) Should there be regulation on how easily a current leader can undo a past leader's work?
2) Are leaders entitled to a guarantee that at least some of their work won't be immediately undone the moment they leave office?
3) Is it reasonable to attempt to prevent one's progress from being destroyed by an incoming leader of a different party?
4) Where does one draw the line between a reasonable attempt to solidify policies and a deliberate effort to restrict the power of an incoming leader?
There are already plenty of intrinsic regulations on undoing past work. Laws may not just be overturned at the switch of an executive's party allegiance. The process for changing legislation must still be carried out. Appointments made by an executive may also be to some extent protected. Leaders are not necessarily entitled to any guarantees. If their work was effective or popular, it is likely for that person to get reelected or for a similarly predisposed candidate to supersede them. George W Bush was not followed by Obama because he did a good job. It is entirely reasonable for one to shield progress from destruction. This makes a lot of sense, especially when it comes to policy that may take a long time to have an effect, like environmental and some economic policies. It is hard to draw an example of what's going "too far" because it is likely subjective. For instance, decreasing the number of supreme court justices to prevent appointments by Andrew Johnson may seem pretty extreme, but for the attitude of much of the US it was a sensible move to make.
ReplyDeleteI agree that progress must be shielded, as Daniel said. But it is difficult to define what progress is when, for some, the progress is actually regression from goals. Although fully supported actions should not be undone, there are changes in majority beliefs. And for that reason, some policies are undone.
ReplyDeleteIt's understandable that the current governor would want to prevent the governor-elect from undoing his policies, but to actually attempt to do this is undemocratic. Governor Walker is blatantly dismissing what the people of Wisconsin want and who they voted for. As both Daniel and Beata stated, it is reasonable for some progress to be shielded from being broken down, but there are different perspectives on what exactly progress is.
ReplyDeleteNo there should not be any concrete regulations on the changing of policy in that way, it has to represent the will of the people, if the majority of people would oppose such an action, the person shouldn't do it, and that should be the system we use to regulate such situations. No leader is entitled to that, especially in a democracy, if the public opposes a plan, they have every right to elect someone to undo it. Yes it is reasonable, but the way to do that is to win popular support, not any antidemocratic actions. The line is drawn whenever a policy of this nature is enacted. As I said before policies should be preserved because they are popular, and by extension good for the people.
ReplyDeleteNo there should not be any regulations on how a current leaders policy is replaced by a former. If there is a national consensus on a policy the leader should pass the policy through legislation instead of other means. Otherwise, the new leader has the authority to sweep aside all the policy the old president made because they are not permanent. There is no guarantee that the previous leaders policy will be followed. The reason for elections is to update the leader with the publics opinion. I feel that within the last 2 months of a leaders rule, he should not pass anything that might limit his replacement.
ReplyDeleteThe actions of Gov. Walker are not unprecedented, actually many presidents and leaders have done it before such as John Adams when he was defeated by Thomas Jefferson. As we all know, the last minute changes of Adams lead to Supreme Court chaos and more changes. I think when Evers comes to office he certainly will try to undo the many changes Walker has proposed, but it will be difficult for him with or without restrictions. We still have to take to account the power of legislators and the courts. Walker will still have supporters in Congress that will challenge Evers. I do think that Walker's actions are unfair, but he isn't doing anything illegal (so far), so we can't really do anything. At the end of the day, politics will run its course and we just have to wait to see the consequences of Walker's actions and Evers' response.
ReplyDeleteI believe in some sense that there should be not a limit, but a line of reason drawn referring to how much current leaders can "undo" past leader progresses. It's sad and unfortunate to see that, in much of politics now, election campaigns have turned into shaming other candidates and attempting to make them look bad, or pointing out all the past mistakes of previous leaders only to boost one's campaign (and self-esteem). If a current leader wishes to repeal something enacted in the past, I believe that current leader should be held to a stronger standard of providing significant evidence as to why they wish to do so. There should be a strong, legitimate reason as to why previous laws should be repealed, and the public should also support its removal.
ReplyDeleteAs Daniel stated above, I also think that even though there are plenty of regulations to undo past work. However, there should still be an increase in regulation made by the bureaucracy. For example, lame-duck sessions should not be allowed to be held, or if they are held, they should be broadcasted so the public is not left in the dark. Moreover, with the fact of regulation, I think that due to an immense amount of it, leaders can guarantee that their work will not be immediately undone. However, with enough public approval for changes in legislation, the work done by the previous leader may be undone, but if this is the case, the work being undone is to protect and listen to the people rather than out of the interests of the controlling leader’s party. Therefore, unless public disapproval causes the change in legislation, I think that leaders have reason to believe that their legislation should be safe for at least a little bit. Thus, it is unreasonable and irrational to attempt to prevent one’s progress from being destroyed since the policy may remain implemented, and if it is changed right away, the public may disapprove of that change. Ultimately, policies passed by one leader should have a protective barrier around them and the only thing to break that barrier would be public disapproval for the policy. Thus, there should be no need for a line between solidifying processes and deliberately restricting the power of an incoming leader since.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be ideal for there to be a guarantee that a legislator's work will remain intact once they leave office, but the remodeling of legislation is the work of a new leader. That's how the government works. For example, when Trump came into office, he looked to make provisions to the government while following his and the Republican party's belief. With the checks and balances system, there is still a system where committees look over proposals of legislation. At the state level, the same process occurs for a bill to become a law. The process does not solely take place with the power of a new legislator, so other legislators from the state have the ability to stop the bill from making any process by not voting for it early on.
ReplyDeleteNo I don't believe there should be any regulations on how policies can be changed from a current leader's to a former's. However, I do think that there has to be a line drawn from how much a current leader can undo a former leader's policies as it could be detrimental for society if that could happen. If a policy is agreed on, it should be passed through legislation. However, if there were regulations to some extent, current and new leaders can completely "undo" a past leader's polices or in other words their entire impact during their term as a leader.
ReplyDeleteLike most of the commenters above, I agree that it would seem futile to simply undo the work that a previous legislator had worked so hard to attain because it would prevent change from actually occurring. While I personally believe that legislators should not just change the legislation of their predecessors purely out of party clashes, I don't think that regulation should be placed to stop it. Our government and the laws we follow are flexible in the sense that they will not always be the same and they change as society changes. The legislative process works in a way that if laws are going to be changed, there needs to be some overall agreement on it. Thus, if it is generally agreed upon to change an old, outdated law, then that is the will of the people, and regulation should not stop is just because it overturns a recent law.
ReplyDelete