> This not accurate. Congress failing to act due to deadlock does not indicate that either party agrees that no change ought to be made, only that congress couldn’t come to an agreement about how it should be made.
That is actually literally what it means. The way the Union is set up, there is a certain amount of consensus necessary to pass legislation over 50 States across 300+ million people.
If there is a deadlock, then it's the system telling you that the consensus isn't met. In a Federal system, this means that the next best place to (try to) pass the law is at the State level, where you may have less of a deadlock.
This is by far one of the pieces a lot of people seem to miss. The system was set up for gridlock in hopes that it will temper some of the more dangerous tendencies of powerful and ambitious men.
It does indicate a consensus is not met, and merely that; the GP claimed the this lack of specific consensus on action is actually a form of broad consensus on inaction, a leap in logic that is unfounded because it ignores the political game theory that is employed in obstructionism.
It also ignores the fundamental brokenness of the system through a sort of circular logic: things didn’t change since they didn’t need to be changed.
That is actually literally what it means. The way the Union is set up, there is a certain amount of consensus necessary to pass legislation over 50 States across 300+ million people.
If there is a deadlock, then it's the system telling you that the consensus isn't met. In a Federal system, this means that the next best place to (try to) pass the law is at the State level, where you may have less of a deadlock.