Thank God for the Senate

The Framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing.

Welcome back to The Burnett Breakdown! If you have not already subscribed, make sure to do that. Also, if there is someone in your life interested in politics, then go ahead and share this newsletter with them.

American vs. French Revolution

I want to start this newsletter in an unexpected place: the French Revolution. The French Revolution provides a great counterexample to the American Revolution because it had many of the same ideals but ended up being significantly more violent and did not result in a functioning, sustainable, republican government.

The French revolutionaries were seeking to overthrow the ancien regime, which essentially divided French society into a caste system and privileged the top 1% with the majority of political power. Many of the largest landholding classes were exempt from taxes because of historical agreements dating back centuries, and the vast majority of people paying those taxes were not fairly represented in the legislature. In fact, the current motto of France, suggested by French revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution in 1790, “Liberty - Equality - Fraternity” provides a good summation of the original intentions of the revolutionaries.

Despite these admirable ideals, the French Revolution quickly devolved into the “Reign of Terror” just a few years in (1793-1794) - a period, led by the aforementioned Robespierre, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of arrests, tens of thousands of executions, and thousands more deaths in prison. Within a couple of years from this, Napoleon Bonaparte took over the French government as a despot leading France for over a decade and reversing many of the “gains” from the French Revolution.

I once got into an argument with a friend (one who reads all my newsletters - hi, Drew) about whether anything good ever comes out of revolutions. I was arguing, under no small influence from Edmund Burke, that no matter how corrupt a current society/system seems, a revolution typically causes more harm than good. My prime example was the French Revolution because it was a corrupt and unjust system that was overthrown only for a worse system to replace it.

My friend countered with the example of the American Revolution as the exception because what came out of the American Revolution was actually better than what it was overthrowing.

While I still don’t know if this example holds (I tend to think the American Revolution was more of a continuation of the British common law tradition not an overthrowing of it), I do believe my friend was getting at the unique nature of the American Revolution. Put plainly, the American Revolution is something of a miracle - an anomaly when considered in the context of how other revolutions have ended up.

The most miraculous part of the American Revolution wasn’t the overthrowing of the British - there have been many regimes toppled by people who had the odds stacked against them - but it’s the government that replaced the British government. In other words, the Constitution.

Post-ratification of the Constitution, there has been no Reign of Terror or military despot that has destroyed the system put in place by the over 200-year-old document. There have obviously been times in American history where the survival of our constitutional system was not guarenteed (see the Civil War), but the constitutional system has not only survived but helped create the conditions that has made America the most powerful, prosperous, and free country in world history.

The Most Powerful Branch

There are many explanations for why the American Revolution did not end the same way as the French Revolution, but the unique insight and brillance possessed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution has to be at the top of the list. They understood human nature, politics, and history in deep and profound ways that is not easily replicated.

One of the most important understandings that the framers of the Consitution had was the importance of process over substantive rights. If you read the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, the first you’ll probably notice is how dry and boring it is. There are a lot of details about how many people make up each branch, what qualifications those people have to meet, what powers they have, when their election must be held, etc.

In the original Constitution before the Bill of Rights were added, there was no mention of what specific rights people were entitled to. This probably comes as a shock to most Americans who only know the Consitution for the rights that it guarentees, but this is because the framers understood that the process they designed protected rights better than merely stating them on a document.

Central to this process that the framers laid out was the creation of separate branches, each containing a specific governmental power, with built-in checks and balances that would ensure one branch did not trample over the others. It was the assumption of the framers that politicians in office would be self-aggrandizing, ambitious, and power-hungry, so they set up a system that incentivized other self-aggrandizing, ambitious, and power-hungry politicians to jealously keep each other in line.

Specifically, Congress was given unique checks on the other two branches in the way of impeachment and the Senate’s advice and consent responsibility. Congress was given these two unique powers because the framers designed Congress to be the most powerful branch. Despite popular belief, there is no such thing as three “co-equal” branches of government. There is powerful Congress, which funds the entire government and is the only one with the ability to hire and fire members of the other branches, and then the other two weaker branches.

This is why I hate the administrative state so much because it increases the power of the executive branch in ways that are completely out of step with the original design of the Constitution.

Trump’s Nominees

I say all of this as a long winded way of getting to my main point which is to talk about the soon-to-be contentious Senate confirmation battles over some of Trump’s most recent cabinet nominations.

In some ways, the battle started this past week as the Senate Republicans voted for their new majority leader upon the stepping down of Mitch McConnell from leadership. The leading candidates to replace McConnell were John Thune of North Dakota, John Cornyn of Texas, and Rick Scott of Florida. While Trump himself did not endorse any of these three, he made his expectations of whoever won clear in a tweet:

Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner. Sometimes the votes can take two years, or more. This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again. We need positions filled IMMEDIATELY! Additionally, no Judges should be approved during this period of time because the Democrats are looking to ram through their Judges as the Republicans fight over Leadership. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THANK YOU!

It’s not surprising that a President would want the Senate to immediately confirm his nominees, but Trump’s insistence on “recess appointments” is unique. Without getting into the legal intricacies, recess appointments are an (likely unconstitutional) attempt to nominate officials without the Senate’s approval. Putting aside what one thinks of Trump’s nominees, the attempt to thwart the Senate’s constitutional duty to confirm Presidential appointments is objectionable.

(Sidenote: Trump being worried about his nominees not getting confirmed by a 53-seat Republican majority should tell you all you need to know about the quality of some of his nominees.)

It also, once again, proves the brillance of the framers of the Constitution. They knew a President would be tempted to fill his administration with unqualified people who’s only redeeming quality was blind loyalty to the President. Fast forward to 2024 and, sure enough, that’s exactly what we have.

This is important to remember in the new year when some of these appointments inevitably face Senate backlash and even fail to be confirmed. If you’re a Republican, it will probably feel like the Senate is stubbornly refusing to let Trump have his way. That’s because that’s exactly what they are going to do, and that’s exactly how the framers designed it to happen.

It may be frustrating for some now, but the next time a Democrat wins the Presidency, it will be a relief that they can’t make AOC the Treasure Secretary by calling a recess appointment.

Thank God for framers of the Constitution and the system they created.

God Bless,

Hunter Burnett