For John, BLUF: Many don't understand our political system. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Over at The New Yorker Columnist George Packer has a blog post like comment on the recent elections in which he misses a lot of good points, but catches his talking points. "Our Democracy's Unnecessary Stupidites".
The author does state that "[t]he filibuster is an unnecessary stupidity." . Then, at the other end of the paragraph he says "[r]ampant abuse has exposed the filibuster as an anti-democratic tool of the defeated minority to thwart the will of the elected majority." But, he goes on to explain it, but without understanding it:
Without bloodlines or ancient traditions to hold the country together, we have only our founding rules, which take on the infallible aura of holy writ, despite immense confusion about what they actually contain. Certain things can be added, with great difficulty—we have twenty-seven constitutional amendments—but it’s almost impossible to subtract anything.The genius of the system is that it protects the minorities by preventing the majority from imposing its will in a capacious manner. Just look around the world and see how minorities fare. Look at the Kachin in Burma (Myanmar).
Regards — Cliff
6 comments:
The filibuster isn't part of the checks and balances of the constitutional system. It's entirely a creation of internal senate rules that are decided on at the beginning of each term by the senators themselves. They've changed filibuster rules before when they've gotten in the way of getting work done. What's happening now is a violation not of rules but of norms, and the violation of norms of filibuster use (and other rules) are making it hard to get work done again. Revisiting the rules, given that the norms aren't holding, is entirely reasonable and might be an imperative.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/07/how-we-broke-the-senate-without-breaking-any-rules/
"The Senate runs on norms even more than it runs on rules. There's much that senators simply didn't used to do because, on the one hand, doing so would be crummy, and on the other, doing so would be destructive. Routinely filibuster everything, for instance. Routinely block the other side from offering amendments. Routinely offer endless non-germane amendments. Routinely use budget reconciliation for matters that really aren't about the budget. Routinely use secret holds."
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
As they used to say at Prego, "It's in there."
The Senators get to set their own rules, every session, by a majority vote. For decades the Democrats in the US Senate used the rules to thwart Republicans trying to roll back bad legislation and bad actions, but to no avail. Thus the cloture rule. In my lifetime it has become harder to filibuster.
Regards — Cliff
If by 'it' you mean a variable that could be anything, then yeah. But that's a distinction without a difference.
I am just saying that over time the filibuster has become part of the system that gives the minority a chance to slow down the majority. To help spare us from the "it seemed like a good idea at the time" situations.
Regards — Cliff
That's absolutely true. The trade-off is a less nimble government and a government where elections don't matter as much because it's so hard to get an agenda passed. Now we've always could have been here where it's almost impossible to get anything done, but norms kept a check on behaviors that would have put us there. Those norms are gone now and we need to re-evaluate because there's work to do, which is touch when your government is so riddled with stopping points rather than starting points. Who can blame people not really seeing a distinction between the parties under these circumstances. They think they're voting for changes and the checks stop them for the most part. That's why the ACA was so impressive - it was a heavy lift. It's also severly hobbled by the compromises necessary to get it through the many stopping gates. The compromises are why it looks like sausage making. Now the minority party is the party of no and it doesn't look like sausage, it looks like a turd with the approval ratings to match.
I think about Civil Rights. After the Civil War it took 100 years to finally finish up the legal side of equal rights for all. To cap the victory in 1865. 100 years. But, we got there.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment