Thursday, January 6, 2011

Why Isn't 30 to 0 Enough For Democrats!

So, Democrats are trying to change senate rules on the filibuster process in order to place new limits on the minority party. On the one hand it seems innocuous enough. On the other, it'll make it easier to pass legislation unimpeded by the minority party. That's hardly consistent with the principles behind the construction and writing of the constitution.

Hamiliton and other of our founders made MANY statements to the effect that this, being a REPUBLIC, requires that the majority party not only 'allow' the minority party fair participation in the legislative process but a REPUBLIC further REQUIRES that the majority party ENSURE fair participation by the minority party. Changing filibuster rules to further limit minority party participation and influence on legislation is completely contrary to those principles. The Founders' goal for such processes in congress was to ensure that the majority party not have unfettered power for fear of what they called tyranny of the majority.

This is ABSOLUTELY clear from the Founders' writings.

Consider that Democrats have held a veto-proof(!) majority in one or both houses for over 30 of my 68 years compared with Republicans holding such a majority exactly ZERO times. A reasonable person MUST admit that Democrats have no reason to feel short-changed on their ability to effect legislation, completely unfetterd MOST of the time. They've had extraordinary ability to force legislation through congress compared with Republicans. Indeed, they have done so.

Note that ALL the programs that are causing us debt problems today were created AND mismanaged by THEM including the one (sub-prime mortgages) that sank our economy over two years ago!

That Democrats want even greater ability to force legislation through congress is unconscionable, arrogant, UNconstitutional (at least in principle), self-serving (versus people-serving), and many other things representing behavior that's not only inconsistent with constitutional principles but also NOT necessarily in the best interests of The People.

No comments: