Skip to main content

View Diary: Apparently, You Can't Filibuster Incompetence (127 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Only we should push.... (none) make it a Constitutional amendment, IMHO. It's too important to play with by either party. I don't know if that's doable, but if we ever return to power, that would be one of the first items I would put on the agenda.

    Of course, I would only do so after I pushed through some liberals to make the Republicans whine, Republicans. "You want something to whine about? Fine we'll give you something to whine about."

    Of course, if the Republicans thought they were going to lose power, they would probably make it an amendment that you need 25% of the minority vote to do

    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

    by Alumbrados on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:20:12 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You might want to think about your proposal (none)
      Political parties are not, at this time, part of the Constitutional framework (as is not god - OT, sorry!).  All Senators are equal, and their organization into majority and minority groups in Congress - wisely, even necessarily - is extra-Constitutional, a product of the rules each house is constitutionally permitted to 'determine'.

      I submit that it would be as great an injury to the Constitution to introduce what you propose to it as is the current Republican assault upon it.

      Or something like that.

      •  When you say political parties (none)
        are not part of the frame work, what you are saying is by saying minority/majority that implicates political parties into the Constitution? If so, I see your point.

        My question then becomes, what could the Democrats do to ensure that the Senate remains a deliberative body, not just remain a rubber stamp for the executive office if they regain power, as opposed to just re-instating the current rules? Or is this just the downside of Democracy, where the people are too ignorant or just don't care enough to elect people who care as much about our Democracy?

        Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

        by Alumbrados on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:48:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Since you ask (none)
          I think the Democrats, on regaining the majority, could declare a 'Day of Conscience' and re-implement the rules as they have been.  Changing a single word in rule XXII would be sufficient - I think - to declare that the 'precedent' Cheney (for Cheney read Satan) established. Maybe?


          1. The Senate has not yet determined categorically if it is (a) a continuing body (since 1789) or (b) a new body every second year following every election despite the fact that 2/3 of its members are in the new body because they were members of the preceding body . . . (the House does not have this problem and enacts its rules explicitly every session).

          2. Less than a century ago, the British Parliament, repeatedly stymied by an upper house which was very much a continuing body, by political means eviscerated or emasculated that upper house. Given that their Constitution is unwritten, they were successful in amending that Constitution without explicitly doing so (the House of Lords in fact assented to its own . . . adjustment, let us say).  

          These are all ultimately political questions.  I liked our Senate as it was, as ridiculous as it is that characters elected by electorates smaller than Long Beach or Huntingtion Station held equivalent power to Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer (e.g.); for every Orin Hatch and Sam Brownbeck there has been a Mike Mansfield, Mike Monroney, and Tom Daschle.

          But if the Senate is to become a copy of the H.R., then fuck, let's just do away with it!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site