Yes, I know. We are a nation of laws. I strongly support that notion, that fact. However, can we remain a viable nation when held hostage to Roberts Rules or the even more arcane Rules of the Senate? I think not.
Undoubtedly, the founding fathers meant that the Senate should be a collegial body, serving longer terms of office, with a mandate to speak for their respective large or small state.
As an aside, the House of Representatives being more closely aligned with the people, it was concluded that they should receive shorter terms of office. This approach encouraged more rapid turnover in the lower House and hopefully provided its members with a better sense of attitudes, wishes and desires of the general public. The role of the House was to run fast with new ideas, debate the merits of proposed legislation, gather majorities for enacting such laws, and pass what they (in the House majority) believed would be good for the people.
Conversely, the Senate was charged with the longer perspective, the broader view to champion the needs of their respective State. To accomplish this goal and to confer the equality of statehood as demanded at the time, two senators were named (later elected, the Seventeenth Amendment) from each state. Senators were awarded terms of six years. So far, so good. The pity, the Constitution allowed for the Senate, once sworn in, to develop its own rules and procedures. How could our founding fathers, perceptive as they seem to have been regarding future changes in our country, have made such a catastrophic error in judgment?
In the Senate, how can this error be corrected or its effects be mitigated?
Prescedence of Motions
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
Suspension and Amendment of the Rules
- No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.
- The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.
So, Mr. Senate Leader, it seems that you must declare a lawmaking emergency, pass the Health Care Reform Bill with fifty-one votes and instruct the Chair to declare it passed. Let the Republicans piss and moan about the Chair violating protocol, precedent, Senate Rules or whatever. Who cares? At worst you may be branded a rule violator. You may be awarded the title of leader.
Such an act does not usurp any powers granted to the Senate by the Constitution. The minority has no rights that would allow them to overturn the majority rule save their own self-inflicted rules and parliamentary procedure. Who will police or sanction the Senate to enforce "Senate Rules" ...a parliamentarian? Anyway, what is the penalty for violating parliamentary procedures? Is Chamber anarchy any more of a threat to the country than a dysfunctional government institution’s inability to act?
Honoring of the principle of majority rule (versus the super majority rule) would not violate the Law or the Constitution. So the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction. Besides the Court has just demonstrated gross violations of precedent (i.e., Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission) and protocol (re: Alito "...not true" remark during State of the Union speech).
Senate leadership just needs to grow a set and put the 59-41 majority to work on the country’s problems else we may not have a country worth saving. We cannot afford nor will we survive another four or eight years of dysfunctional, inept government.
Would flaunting of one of the Senate Rules lead to revolution or, more likely, would the result be a workable government? I can’t see the Republicans taking up arms. Whose children would they send out to fight? Surely, they would not send their own. You betcha, neither could the rhetoric of Sarah Palin nor Dick Cheney overturn this initiative.
I have always believed that for a time, the country could outlive poor government. After Bush and the devastation he, his administration and the Republican Congress with the willing aid of some Democrats brought about, I am not so sure that the previously innate stability of the American people will long survive. Without a reasonable level of cohesion among the people, the country cannot stand. Return to a workable government is an absolute imperative. Certainly, we cannot long survive as a country if a political party majority in both houses (super majority in the Senate) and the President of the same party fails to be enough to pass needed laws, set budgets, administer government, the economy, etc.
In many countries dysfunctional government leads to democratic, economic, and political collapse. It seems that we in this country are intent on exploring this abysmal end.
Please! Talk me down from this ledge. Show me where I am wrong in my thesis regarding the requirement for the majority party to take charge and govern these heretofore united, United States of America.
Screw the Republicans ...ignore them and let the chips fall where they may in November. My bet is that the country will cheer such decisive actions and reward the take-charge party with bigger majorities and a longer stay in power.