Filibuster Change Could Lead to the Repeal of ObamaCare
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Same argument every dictator makes as they grab power for their own benefit. These guys are so blinded with power envy that they cannot distinguish between what's good for the country and what is that THEY think the country should do. Dealing with differences of opinion, negotiating and being frustrated because the other guy forces you to change your recommendation a bit is one of the pillars of democracy - has been for 2500 years. That's why Julius Caesar grabbed power and after him many others including Hitler and Fidel Castro... to make things "work".
Or alternatively, changing the rules so that the Senate can fulfill its responsibility, under the Constitution, of providing advice and consent with an up or down vote regarding administration appointees may lead to a better functioning government. There are usually scenarios other than those assumed by ET lunatics!
As the Senate's Leader, Harry Reid is responsible for seeing that the Senate carry out its duties under the Constitution. One of those specified duties is to offer advice and consent on administrative appointments made by the President. In the past both parties have used the filibuster to prevent the Senate from carrying out its duty with respect to specific appointees. But until now, no party has attempted to completely prevent the Senate from offering advice and consent on any appointee, and thereby bring to a halt the efficient functioning of the government. Reid had no other choice other than to call for a rule change, so that the Senate could proceed with the business mandated to it by the Constitution. Kudos to Mr. Reid.
What the Republican Senate Leadership was attempting to do was profoundly unconstitutional, and an act of rebellion. Harry Reid was left with no choice.
Until its republicans doing it.
CORRECTAMUNDO! And EXACTLY why the Founders gave us the necessity of a super majority in the Senate.
The Judiciary was also supposed to act as a check to overzealous power grabs by Executive and Legislative... but that's gone by the wayside, too.
America is on the path to Socialism/Communism, Dictatorial Rule.. all because of power-hungry, greedy politicos and an equally greedy, undereducated and lazy parasite class allowing it.
And with Odumbo now going to be able to (1) stick taxpayers for part of others' mortgages... yet even more "wealth redistribution"... + (2) stack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with Libtard judges who will rubber-stamp every power-grab whim of Odumbo and the Left... WE'RE SLIPPING FAST!
That's incorrect Scat. A "super majority" is spelled out by the Founders only in specific instances, Amendment, Impeachment, and Expulsion. Otherwise, the Founders gave to the Senate (Article 1, section 5) the power to make its own rules. The Founders did most emphatically NOT give "...us the necessity of a super majority in..." ordinary matters before the Senate. In fact, it is abundantly clear that the Founders anticipated, assumed and expected majority rule to settle ordinary matters in both Houses. The recent rule change in the U.S. Senate is in accord with the Founders expectations. The Founders did not anticipate the filibuster, nor did they envision that the rules adopted would be such as to permit a minority faction in either house to bring the everyday operation of the government to a halt.Quote from Scataphagos:
CORRECTAMUNDO! And EXACTLY why the Founders gave us the necessity of a super majority in the Senate....
I admire the work of the Founders as being well conceived as a protection of their own interests at the time. It would be unreasonable, considering the vast changes that have occurred, to expect an eighteenth century Constitution to be applicable to the twenty-first century; hence the many amendments and broad interpretations of the Court. But Amendment is cumbersome, and broad interpretation a two edged sword. Glaring weaknesses remain, and have been the source government disintegration and court decisions damaging to the populace. We continue to suffer under an obsolescent document.
We are caught in a trap. The further we go down this ill conceived road under our present obsolescent Constitution the more dysfunctional our government, and the more dysfunctional the government, the less the prospect of a sensible revision, or peaceful generation of a modern constitution. Countries with modern constitutions have a distinct advantage.
Republicans, in their attempts to push the government toward ruin at all cost, are pushing us all headlong toward chaos. Though the U.S. is still the most capitalist, large nation on planet Earth, Republican intransigence could ironically be pushing us toward more socialism and even less freedom; the exact opposite of what they want. It is impossible to predict the outcome of chaos.
The end that this obstructionist minority of the Republican party seeks is unachievable without revolution. On the other hand, were they to grasp reality and begin to seek positive reform within the system they might have at least limited success.
The mainstream of their party has recognized the improbable odds of success by obstruction, and are attempting to take firmer control of the party. I would expect the revolutionary wing to be forced out, should party regulars decide to withhold campaign funds. If the radical wing runs as a third party, and the democrats do not similarly self-destruct, this will assure democrat election victories in future Senate and Presidential races --particularly if current demographic trends remain in place.
Not much change in the House make-up should occur. What is likely is that the few House Republicans not from safe districts will begin cooperating with the Democrats in an effort to hang onto their seats, more or less analogous to what we have seen in New Jersey with regard to the governor's race, because Christy was/is not from a "safe district."
By the November 2014, a new sex scandal will have superseded Obamney care carping, or alternatively, another Zimmerman, or even the old one, may pop up at an opportune time. There is hardly anything that Joe the plumber has a shorter attention span for than facts. Getting him to vote is difficult enough. Asking him to pay attention is wishful thinking. The probability of his studying the issues in depth is roughly the probability of Lloyd Blankfein becoming a Monk.
The end that this obstructionist minority of the Republican party seeks is unachievable without revolution. On the other hand, were they to grasp reality and begin to seek positive reform within the system they might have at least limited success.
The mainstream of their party has recognized the improbable odds of success by obstruction, and are attempting to take firmer control of the party. I would expect the revolutionary wing to be forced out, should party regulars decide to withhold campaign funds. If the radical wing runs as a third party, and the democrats do not similarly self-destruct, this will assure democrat election victories in future Senate and Presidential races --particularly if current demographic trends remain in place.
Not much change in the House make-up should occur. What is likely is that the few House Republicans not from safe districts will begin cooperating with the Democrats in an effort to hang onto their seats, more or less analogous to what we have seen in New Jersey with regard to the governor's race, because Christy was/is not from a "safe district."
By the November 2014, a new sex scandal will have superseded Obamney care carping, or alternatively, another Zimmerman, or even the old one, may pop up at an opportune time. There is hardly anything that Joe the plumber has a shorter attention span for than facts. Getting him to vote is difficult enough. Asking him to pay attention is wishful thinking. The probability of his studying the issues in depth is roughly the probability of Lloyd Blankfein becoming a Monk.