Rebublicans are full of shit, part 1b: the "Constitutional option" and up-or-down votes
Ah, the Republican doublespeak. I should note, in the interest of balance, that Democratic doublespeak is every bit as loathsome; it just so happens, though, that the Democrats aren't in power. An "up-or-down vote", Mr. Delay? Do you view the American public as stupid enough not to see that, in a 59-41 Senate, that means de facto approval? The fact that many Americans may be is beside the point. Would you be so quick, Mr. Delay, to call for an up-or-down vote were the ratio of Republicans to Democrats reversed? Therein lies the first level of disingenuity. As for the "constitutional option," well, that's just a load of shit.
Throughout our Constitution, and our system itself, is a recurrent theme: a minority, or even an individual, can thwart the majority's attempt to use government power. For example, 51 Senators trump 435 Representatives; 1 President trumps 535 Legislators; 5 Justices trump 536 Legislators and Executives -- and with the 14th Amendment, those 5 justices trump the combined force of every state, county, municipal, and federal government agent, short of two-thirds of federal legislators and three-quarters of the fifty state governments. Of course, impeachment is the tool of the majority, but again, that's a tool for withholding government power from individuals it is not within the power of the Legislature to replace. One state trumps 49 others (currently; I wonder when or if we'll ever get another state. . . ), because no state can be deprived of sovereignty. Similarly, in law, 1 juror can prevent a guilty verdict, and 1 judge can overturn a guilty verdict.
So why the filibuster? Unlimited debate is the province of the Senate, whose members have the longest elected terms in the federal government. The minimum age for Senators is 30, that of Represantatives only 25. It is here that reason is supposed to win out over passion, over the mob's limitless lust for power. The Senate's composition already argues for the preservation of rights of smaller states, each of which has the same number of Senators as the largest state. And let's be clear: the threshold for cloture is 60 votes, so anyone who claims that a "small minority" of Senators is gumming up the works is, well, full of shit.
Anyway, reducing the threshold to 50 votes doesn't sound like the kind of option attributable to the Constitution I've read.
Delay and his minions, in their slavish devotion to Bush, are already perverting the intent of the Constitution by attempting to make the legislative branch a tool of the executive. They are further showing an unforgivable foolishness that is most anti-American: the notion that powers granted to the government are used only for the purposes intended, and are never abused. Or perhaps they just think that the Republicans shall always be in the majority, which is just silly. Supreme Court Justices die and retire unpredictably, so who knows what party (even the Libertarians, dare I hope?) shall be in majority in the Senate when the next round of judicial retirements come around? If the Republicans are in the minority, will they speak approvingly of the 51-vote cloture rule?
This is so incomprehensible to me. Demography changes, after all, and giving government authority to push your agenda virtually guarantees that at some future date, government will push an agenda that is not yours, or even counter to yours, using the authority you gave it. If government can say "In God We Trust," it can say "Allahu akbar!"; if we establish English as the official language of the country, later demographies can replace it with Spanish; if we allow government to forbid homosexual marriage, how about interracial marriage, or even (gasp) heterosexual marriage? All it takes is a shift in demography, and a minority that has had to put up with one expression of the authority to speak on religion, language, or interpersonal relationship will, upon becoming a majority, make the government do something else. The way to protect your language, religion, or culture is not to enshrine it in an amendable constitution, but to keep all of it out of government.
And the way to ensure that you won't be railroaded when you are a 49% minority, don't use your slim majority now to whittle away at minority checks on power.
Throughout our Constitution, and our system itself, is a recurrent theme: a minority, or even an individual, can thwart the majority's attempt to use government power. For example, 51 Senators trump 435 Representatives; 1 President trumps 535 Legislators; 5 Justices trump 536 Legislators and Executives -- and with the 14th Amendment, those 5 justices trump the combined force of every state, county, municipal, and federal government agent, short of two-thirds of federal legislators and three-quarters of the fifty state governments. Of course, impeachment is the tool of the majority, but again, that's a tool for withholding government power from individuals it is not within the power of the Legislature to replace. One state trumps 49 others (currently; I wonder when or if we'll ever get another state. . . ), because no state can be deprived of sovereignty. Similarly, in law, 1 juror can prevent a guilty verdict, and 1 judge can overturn a guilty verdict.
So why the filibuster? Unlimited debate is the province of the Senate, whose members have the longest elected terms in the federal government. The minimum age for Senators is 30, that of Represantatives only 25. It is here that reason is supposed to win out over passion, over the mob's limitless lust for power. The Senate's composition already argues for the preservation of rights of smaller states, each of which has the same number of Senators as the largest state. And let's be clear: the threshold for cloture is 60 votes, so anyone who claims that a "small minority" of Senators is gumming up the works is, well, full of shit.
Anyway, reducing the threshold to 50 votes doesn't sound like the kind of option attributable to the Constitution I've read.
Delay and his minions, in their slavish devotion to Bush, are already perverting the intent of the Constitution by attempting to make the legislative branch a tool of the executive. They are further showing an unforgivable foolishness that is most anti-American: the notion that powers granted to the government are used only for the purposes intended, and are never abused. Or perhaps they just think that the Republicans shall always be in the majority, which is just silly. Supreme Court Justices die and retire unpredictably, so who knows what party (even the Libertarians, dare I hope?) shall be in majority in the Senate when the next round of judicial retirements come around? If the Republicans are in the minority, will they speak approvingly of the 51-vote cloture rule?
This is so incomprehensible to me. Demography changes, after all, and giving government authority to push your agenda virtually guarantees that at some future date, government will push an agenda that is not yours, or even counter to yours, using the authority you gave it. If government can say "In God We Trust," it can say "Allahu akbar!"; if we establish English as the official language of the country, later demographies can replace it with Spanish; if we allow government to forbid homosexual marriage, how about interracial marriage, or even (gasp) heterosexual marriage? All it takes is a shift in demography, and a minority that has had to put up with one expression of the authority to speak on religion, language, or interpersonal relationship will, upon becoming a majority, make the government do something else. The way to protect your language, religion, or culture is not to enshrine it in an amendable constitution, but to keep all of it out of government.
And the way to ensure that you won't be railroaded when you are a 49% minority, don't use your slim majority now to whittle away at minority checks on power.
posted by heavynettle at 15:28
2 Comments:
And speaking of railroading minorities, just look what lobbyists can offer now: "Got trouble buying out farmers in order to build those luxery homes? No problem! Just give to the right campaign fund and get those farms condemned for the public good!"
No kidding, theft by government at every level, including the notoriously corrupt local city hall, has just been legalized: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html.
Yeah, I heard about this. Que chingaos ese? Takoe gavno, moy drug. Time to get that gun I've been looking at: the revenuers ain't takin' my farm!
This brings up the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights. In the case of property rights, we have the right to property, just not the inalienable right to a given piece of property. The question, in terms of the Constitutionality of a given expropriation, is the compensation provided. How much would it take to get you out of your house?
Post a Comment
<< Home