End filibusters now. Filibusters violate the basic democratic principle of majority rule. The filibuster is not democratic.
End filibusters now. Since the filibuster violates the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule, the filibuster is absolutely not democratic. In my opinion, filibusters result in the tyranny of the minority by allowing the minority to dictate and control the legislative process countering the will of the majority. Filibusters are a significant reason that the Legislative Branch of the United States government is held in such low esteem. Filibusters prevent effective and timely governance. End filibusters now by changing Senate filibuster rules. It baffles me to think that the filibuster survives in the Senate in light of the council of the Founders and its divisive and tragic history.
In The Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton explicitly explained the importance of the simple majority as follows:
‘œ(This) ‘contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail’.
But this is not all; what at first sight may seem a remedy, is in reality a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number’. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays ‘“ continual negotiation and intrigue ‘“ contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions, things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated’.
It is not difficult to discover that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed’.’
In situations where foreign countries, international conglomerates, critical domestic industries like the automotive industry or the financial industries, or those seeking to implement or legislate changes in mores of society, Hamilton continued with some interesting and relevant observations regarding requirements for more than a simple majority to make legislative decisions in The Federalist No. 22:
‘œIn such a state of things, (any entity seeking to influence the legislative process) would evidently find it much easier by his bribes and intrigues to tie up the hands of government from making’ (decisions), where two thirds (or 60) of all votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last a greater number. Upon the same principle it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war, to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And in a commercial view we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade; though-such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.
Evils of this description ought not be so regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford to easy an inlet to foreign (or nefarious) corruption.’
Hamilton demonstrated several good reasons to end filibusters now. Our Constitution was formulated on the bases of simple majority rule. The only exceptions specified in the Constitution are the Presidential veto override by the Congress, treaty ratification in the Senate, and the amendment process outlined in Article V. The filibuster violates this concept. Consequently, we should end filibusters now.
“‘When we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was a mistake. In 1805′ Aaron Burr’ offered this advice’. A truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion (now Cloture where 60 Senators end filibuster)’. When Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn”t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book;’ and the filibuster became enshrined in Senate rules.”
The filibuster was responsible for prolonging some of the most egregious wrongs of the Jim Crow’ era.
End filibusters now. The filibuster is not democratic. Filibusters extended Jim Crow segregation. The filibuster is an affront to We the People.
‘œIn 1917, the Senate approved Rule 22, which allowed it to end debate on a bill if two-thirds of senators vote for ‘cloture.’ Cloture was powerless against filibusters supported by more than a third of senators allowing Southern Democrats to use filibusters to kill every meaningful civil rights bill for the next 47 years’. (During this time)’, the House passed bills to outlaw discrimination and protect the right of black citizens to vote, only to watch the bills killed by filibusters in the Senate.In an era when white mobs frequently lynched black people with impunity, Southern senators used filibusters to defeat anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, 1938, 1948 and 1949′. Whatever their party affiliation, critics of the filibuster are undeniably correct: The tactic is intrinsically undemocratic’. In 1975, the Senate changed the number of votes needed for cloture from 67 to 60.’
Hamilton”s discussion of the problems arising from decisions requiring more than a simple majority were prophetic. Southern Democrats used the filibuster to stop civil rights laws and prevent lynching of blacks in the south. Currently, problems preventing congress from completing significant legislation, policy decisions, and approval of Judges and Executive Branch appointments requiring Senate approval can be directly traced to issues related to actions requiring 60 votes for cloture in the Senate rather than a simple, ‘œup or down,’ majority vote. Failure to act shows ‘œWe the people’ that the Senate has no respect for the will of citizens of the United States.
The filibuster is not democratic and thwarts the will of We the People.
End filibusters now!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The 2016 election cycle raised several questions about our political problems and the Constitution.
The 2016 election cycle raised several questions about our political problems and the Constitution. The first two problems are primarily Constitutional issues which influence the political problems facing the United States. The first Constitutional issue is the fact that the Judicial Branch is unchecked in Constitution. In my opinion, the only remedy for this issue is a Constitutional Amendment. The second Constitutional issue is problem of anchor babies born in the United States who have illegal immigrant parents. There is no clear answer to this question. However, Amendment XIV, Section 5, of our Constitution, ratified in 1868, offers the following potential solution: The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Amendment XIV was clearly written to address all issues related to the citizenship of former slaves following the Civil War. Section 5 gives Congress the power to formulate appropriate legislation in this matter. Unfortunately, the Congress has not even investigated or proposed legislation to solve the issue since it is one of those political problems that could adversely affect elections. Failure to attempt to solve political problems demonstrates to We the People that the system is rigged. Keeping the anchor baby issue alive helps some politicians maintain political power. The issue is not the issue, maintaining political power is the issue for these type politicians. They simply seek to get re-elected. Change is necessary.
Third, the question about the wisdom of forming additional political parties continues to be one of the more personally confusing political problems facing our nation. During the 2016 election campaign disgruntled conservatives in the Republican Party seriously considered forming a third, conservative party. In the United States, we have a constitutional republic not a parliamentarian system like that of Great Britain or Israel. Our Constitution was formulated on the bases of simple majority rule. The only exceptions specified in the Constitution are Presidential veto override by the Congress, treaty ratification in the Senate, and the amendment process outlined in Article V. Consequently, when more than two political parties gain significant electoral participation, the result could be election of a President having a plurality of votes rather than a majority of votes. The situation contradicts one of the major tenants of the republican form of government, majority rule.
For example, President Clinton only garnered approximately 45% of the popular vote both times he was elected. Votes for the two conservatives, President Bush and Ross Perot, totaled at least 55%, in 1992. The same situation occurred in the next presidential election when the Republican candidate was Senator Dole. Again conservatives garnered approximately 55% of the vote. President Clinton claimed a mandate in each election; but he never had a majority vote of the citizens. Of course, our Electoral College system modifies and mitigates the relationship between votes cast by citizens and Electoral College votes. President Clinton did have significant Electoral College victories under our constitutional system in both elections.
If, as a nation, we believe that our national leaders, President, Representatives, and Senators should serve when they are elected by the majority of our citizens, provisions would be required when there are more than two popular political parties. The only way to elect national leaders with a majority of the popular vote would be to require runoff elections when no candidate achieves a simple majority. In the case of the presidential election, this requirement would be state-by-state to maintain our Electoral College system. Such a system would prevent the election of the liberal presidential candidate when the majority of the citizens voted for conservative presidential candidates which occurred in 1992 and 1996. States could follow suit if they chose to do so for state and local elections. Of course, such a remedy would require the long and rancorous procedure of a constitutional amendment. Such a process would also be expensive.
Fourth, one of the more personally vexing political problems facing the nation is the Senate filibuster which violates the democratic republican principle of majority rule. In The Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton explicitly explained the importance of the simple majority as follows:
“(This) contradicts that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.
But this is not all; what at first sight may seem a remedy, is in reality a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays “ continual negotiation and intrigue “ contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions, things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated.
It is not difficult to discover that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed.”
In situations where foreign countries, international conglomerates, critical domestic industries like the automotive industry or the financial industries, or those seeking to implement or legislate changes in mores of society, Hamilton continued with some interesting and relevant observations regarding requirements for more than a simple majority to make legislative decisions in The Federalist No. 22:
In such a state of things, (any entity seeking to influence the legislative process) would evidently find it much easier by his bribes and intrigues to tie up the hands of government from making (decisions), where two thirds of all votes were requisite to that object, than where a simple majority would suffice. In the first case he would have to corrupt a smaller number; in the last a greater number. Upon the same principle it would be much easier for a foreign power with which we were at war, to perplex our councils and embarrass our exertions. And in a commercial view we may be subjected to similar inconveniences. A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade; though-such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.
Evils of this description ought not be so regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford to easy an inlet to foreign (or nefarious) corruption.”
Hamilton’s discussion of the problems arising from decisions requiring more than a simple majority were prophetic. Recent problems preventing congress from completing significant legislation and policy decisions can be directly traced to issues related to actions requiring a 60 percent vote in the Senate rather than a simple, up or down, majority vote. Failure to act shows We the people that political problems prevail in the legislative branch of our government, specifically the Senate filibuster.
The fifth and final group of political problems facing our nation is the manner in which too many of the bills passed in congress link or embed unrelated initiatives and problem solutions into one piece of legislation. The procedure is often done accommodate the opposition to get votes or hide unpopular activities or programs from the voters. The result is often passage of unwanted laws that are not supported by the majority of We the People. Such acts reinforce the perception that the desires of We the People are irrelevant to those we elect to represent us or serve as our President. We the People do not elect national leaders to do what is expedient; we elect our leaders to do what is right; and what we elected them to do.
Each item of legislation should be approved individually by a simple majority. For example, linking bills that the defund Planned Parenthood and fund the Defense Department or emergency defense funding is unconscionable. It ensures failure of both bills or angers We the People. Each should be considered on their own merits and given an up or down simple majority vote. We the People do not appreciate the games played by our elected officials in Washington, DC. DC games demonstrate to We the people that the system is rigged. These types of DC games demonstrate the severity of the political problems plaguing the Legislative Branch of the United States government.
The political problems outlined in this discussion represent a short list of issues that We the People expect our national leaders to address and solve. So, get busy and JUST DO IT!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
