Joseph Lane: Is McCain going to alter our constitutional government by creating a "Question Time" in Congress?
[Joseph Lane is the Hawthorne Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Emory & Henry.]
[Little] attention has been paid to [John] McCain’s reiterations, and expansions, upon his claim that he will provide unprecedented access to both Congress and the media to ask questions of him when/if he is President. Over at least the last thirty years, we have been watching a trend towards less and less unfettered public or congressional access to the President, and McCain would be following one of the most secretive administrations in history. In terms of the fraying relationships between the two leading branches of our government, these claims – and he is getting more insistent about them all the time – really deserve to be considered carefully. In fact, the most sweeping change that he insisted upon in his Politico interview could be nothing less than a constitutional revolution. I am referring to his promise to have “Question Time” (a la the House of Commons grilling the Prime Minister on Wednesdays) “once every couple of weeks.”
This is not to say that such a practice would be inconsistent with our constitutional design, but it would mark a very different interpretation of it than the one that has prevailed for much of our history.
Consider Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: [The President] “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
The language of the Constitution does not, in any strict sense, dictate our common practice of limiting the president’s appearances before Congress to an “Annual Message” (what Franklin Roosevelt coined as “The State of the Union”) nor does it preclude the type of event that McCain now proposes. How the “information” is to be delivered is entirely open-ended, and “from time to time” could mean once a year but it could also mean “every couple of weeks.” We have long held that the President “recommends measures for consideration” by having congressional surrogates introduce bills for congressional consideration, but the constitution does not say that he can’t deliver them in person.
The practice of presenting the President’s “information” as a formal speech to Congress near the opening of each new session is never specified in our constitution, and even though it seems a time-honored ritual, this practice itself has undergone many changes during our history. Washington and Adams delivered such addresses in person. Jefferson thought such speeches too monarchical – suggesting an unseemly subordination of the people’s representatives to an executive command – and inaugurated the practice of limiting formal communications with Congress to written messages delivered by the clerk of the House.
After over 100 years in abeyance, Woodrow Wilson reinstituted the practice of the President delivering a message to Congress in person and also began the now common practice of using the statement as an opportunity to present an “administration agenda” to the legislature. While Jefferson had feared that the President speaking of constitutional verities to Congress looked too much like a monarch establishing the terms of patriotic citizenship to subjects in the trappings of a “Speech from the Throne,” Wilson had in mind a presentation of the President as a “head of government” rather than as a “head of state.” His intention, pre-figured by his seminal essays on “Cabinet Government,” was to move the President more in the direction of being a Prime Minister.
Ironically, John McCain (a proud devotee of Wilson’s bitter rival Teddy Roosevelt) appears interested in taking us farther in this direction. Although the precise contours of a “Presidential Question Time” would have to be worked out, it is inconceivable that it would preserve the high state formalities that characterize our annual State of the Union addresses today. The ritual pounding of the door, announcement of the Sergeant at Arms, hand-pumping strolls, and periodic standing ovations would not be repeated (or covered by all major networks) every two weeks. It seems inevitable that a regular Question Time would become a much more workaday affair.
Would the President carry a giant briefing book and flip through it before answering? Would he suffer the jeers and boos of the opposition (and sometimes his own) backbenchers when he answered poorly or made reference to a member of his cabinet who is out of favor with the legislators? Would he dare to reply to questioners who appeared to be infringing on purely executive matters that “it is none of your damned business”? And how would that play when the American people saw the President reacting that way to members of the House on CNN?
These last two questions, in particular, should be carefully considered before we buy McCain’s “open presidency.” Gordon Brown is the first minister of Parliament and his business is Parliament’s business. They can remove him if they don’t like his answers, but the American President is not hired by Congress and is answerable to them only in cases of impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What does that leave Congress to do with a President who provides poor answers or refuses to answer important questions at all? In time, would failure to answer congressional queries come to be treated as an impeachable dereliction of a constitutional duty to “give to Congress information on the State of the Union”? Would this subordinate the executive’s power to the “confidence” of Congress?
McCain’s “Question Time” promise raises far more questions than I can enumerate here, but if he wants to make the claim, he should have to explain how this will work and how it will transform – for good or ill – the relationship between the branches of our government.
Let’s hope that during the presidential debates, McCain is not asked how many houses he owns but rather about how he proposes to conduct himself if he, as President, goes to visit the houses of Congress.
Read entire article at Britannica Blog
[Little] attention has been paid to [John] McCain’s reiterations, and expansions, upon his claim that he will provide unprecedented access to both Congress and the media to ask questions of him when/if he is President. Over at least the last thirty years, we have been watching a trend towards less and less unfettered public or congressional access to the President, and McCain would be following one of the most secretive administrations in history. In terms of the fraying relationships between the two leading branches of our government, these claims – and he is getting more insistent about them all the time – really deserve to be considered carefully. In fact, the most sweeping change that he insisted upon in his Politico interview could be nothing less than a constitutional revolution. I am referring to his promise to have “Question Time” (a la the House of Commons grilling the Prime Minister on Wednesdays) “once every couple of weeks.”
This is not to say that such a practice would be inconsistent with our constitutional design, but it would mark a very different interpretation of it than the one that has prevailed for much of our history.
Consider Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: [The President] “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
The language of the Constitution does not, in any strict sense, dictate our common practice of limiting the president’s appearances before Congress to an “Annual Message” (what Franklin Roosevelt coined as “The State of the Union”) nor does it preclude the type of event that McCain now proposes. How the “information” is to be delivered is entirely open-ended, and “from time to time” could mean once a year but it could also mean “every couple of weeks.” We have long held that the President “recommends measures for consideration” by having congressional surrogates introduce bills for congressional consideration, but the constitution does not say that he can’t deliver them in person.
The practice of presenting the President’s “information” as a formal speech to Congress near the opening of each new session is never specified in our constitution, and even though it seems a time-honored ritual, this practice itself has undergone many changes during our history. Washington and Adams delivered such addresses in person. Jefferson thought such speeches too monarchical – suggesting an unseemly subordination of the people’s representatives to an executive command – and inaugurated the practice of limiting formal communications with Congress to written messages delivered by the clerk of the House.
After over 100 years in abeyance, Woodrow Wilson reinstituted the practice of the President delivering a message to Congress in person and also began the now common practice of using the statement as an opportunity to present an “administration agenda” to the legislature. While Jefferson had feared that the President speaking of constitutional verities to Congress looked too much like a monarch establishing the terms of patriotic citizenship to subjects in the trappings of a “Speech from the Throne,” Wilson had in mind a presentation of the President as a “head of government” rather than as a “head of state.” His intention, pre-figured by his seminal essays on “Cabinet Government,” was to move the President more in the direction of being a Prime Minister.
Ironically, John McCain (a proud devotee of Wilson’s bitter rival Teddy Roosevelt) appears interested in taking us farther in this direction. Although the precise contours of a “Presidential Question Time” would have to be worked out, it is inconceivable that it would preserve the high state formalities that characterize our annual State of the Union addresses today. The ritual pounding of the door, announcement of the Sergeant at Arms, hand-pumping strolls, and periodic standing ovations would not be repeated (or covered by all major networks) every two weeks. It seems inevitable that a regular Question Time would become a much more workaday affair.
Would the President carry a giant briefing book and flip through it before answering? Would he suffer the jeers and boos of the opposition (and sometimes his own) backbenchers when he answered poorly or made reference to a member of his cabinet who is out of favor with the legislators? Would he dare to reply to questioners who appeared to be infringing on purely executive matters that “it is none of your damned business”? And how would that play when the American people saw the President reacting that way to members of the House on CNN?
These last two questions, in particular, should be carefully considered before we buy McCain’s “open presidency.” Gordon Brown is the first minister of Parliament and his business is Parliament’s business. They can remove him if they don’t like his answers, but the American President is not hired by Congress and is answerable to them only in cases of impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What does that leave Congress to do with a President who provides poor answers or refuses to answer important questions at all? In time, would failure to answer congressional queries come to be treated as an impeachable dereliction of a constitutional duty to “give to Congress information on the State of the Union”? Would this subordinate the executive’s power to the “confidence” of Congress?
McCain’s “Question Time” promise raises far more questions than I can enumerate here, but if he wants to make the claim, he should have to explain how this will work and how it will transform – for good or ill – the relationship between the branches of our government.
Let’s hope that during the presidential debates, McCain is not asked how many houses he owns but rather about how he proposes to conduct himself if he, as President, goes to visit the houses of Congress.