And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:53 pm

You assume far to much about the existing election process and the way the American people are told "truth" when you make those kinds of statments.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6662
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am


Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby clampdaddy » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:00 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Explain to me the huge disparity in use of the filibuster against Obama vs any other president. That's the issue........


Why does Obama get filibuster immunity? That is the issue.

Same reason Bush did

I don't follow where you're going here BDD2. What do you mean?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3637
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby assateague » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:07 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Explain to me the huge disparity in use of the filibuster against Obama vs any other president. That's the issue........


Why does Obama get filibuster immunity? That is the issue.

Same reason Bush did



You're aware that nobody else ever was granted "filibuster immunity", right? You keep speaking as if the republicans did it, but I am not aware of that ever happening. A quick Google search confirmed this, but if you can show me proof, I'll happily concede the point.


As for the number of filibusters, how about because Obama is so far left that his policies are fought at every step? How about, Harry Reid is a looney-toon, and his policies are fought at every step? You seem to be assuming that the filibusters are used simply because they want to, without giving any credence to the idea that the policies and bills are crap.

If somebody is trying to break in my house, steal my crap, and rape my wife, I will happily be called
"obstructionist" by trying to prevent them.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:47 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Explain to me the huge disparity in use of the filibuster against Obama vs any other president. That's the issue........


Why does Obama get filibuster immunity? That is the issue.

Same reason Bush did

I don't follow where you're going here BDD2. What do you mean?

I mean when the filibuster gets over-ridden, it's because the majority party feels like they're getting screwed by the minority. That's why the Bush people did it, that's why the Obama people did it, hell…... I'm guessing that's why ANYONE does it
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:49 pm

assateague wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Explain to me the huge disparity in use of the filibuster against Obama vs any other president. That's the issue........


Why does Obama get filibuster immunity? That is the issue.

Same reason Bush did



You're aware that nobody else ever was granted "filibuster immunity", right? You keep speaking as if the republicans did it, but I am not aware of that ever happening. A quick Google search confirmed this, but if you can show me proof, I'll happily concede the point.


As for the number of filibusters, how about because Obama is so far left that his policies are fought at every step? How about, Harry Reid is a looney-toon, and his policies are fought at every step? You seem to be assuming that the filibusters are used simply because they want to, without giving any credence to the idea that the policies and bills are crap.

If somebody is trying to break in my house, steal my crap, and rape my wife, I will happily be called
"obstructionist" by trying to prevent them.

No, Spinner nailed the main reason for the disparity above. It has more to do with how much an administration has a majority in the senate, because they won't get filibustered otherwise. Still doesn't explain all the historical firsts for the Republican filibuster, like the Grassley nomination.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby assateague » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:02 pm

Maybe Obama has an affinity for batshit crazy appointees? Just an idea.


As for the repubs, like I said, they have never done what you seem to be implying (change the rules, that is). Either way, I hate them all. And yes, I do mean that.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:19 pm

assateague wrote:Maybe Obama has an affinity for batshit crazy appointees? Just an idea.


As for the repubs, like I said, they have never done what you seem to be implying (change the rules, that is). Either way, I hate them all. And yes, I do mean that.

Only because democrats agreed to stop filibustering judicial appointees, right? That was the whole "Gang of Seven" thing I think. But you're right, it was never used as anything but a bully stick. Not invoked
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:20 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Explain to me the huge disparity in use of the filibuster against Obama vs any other president. That's the issue........


Why does Obama get filibuster immunity? That is the issue.

Same reason Bush did

I don't follow where you're going here BDD2. What do you mean?

I mean when the filibuster gets over-ridden, it's because the majority party feels like they're getting screwed by the minority. That's why the Bush people did it, that's why the Obama people did it, hell…... I'm guessing that's why ANYONE does it

Bush only threatened to do it. My bad. (it worked, btw…dems agreed to stop filibustering judicial nominees)
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:35 pm

So down the road, If the republicans take over the senate, retain their majority in the house, and win the white house. And they then repeal Obamacare, you'll be A-Okay with the repeal of the filibuster right?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57626
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:38 pm

Indaswamp wrote:So down the road, If the republicans take over the senate, retain their majority in the house, and win the white house. And they then repeal Obamacare, you'll be A-Okay with the repeal of the filibuster right?

Absolutely, and I'd like to see the thing written out of existence. I seriously do not think the framers of the constitution envisioned this. Do you?
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:40 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:So down the road, If the republicans take over the senate, retain their majority in the house, and win the white house. And they then repeal Obamacare, you'll be A-Okay with the repeal of the filibuster right?

Absolutely, and I'd like to see the thing written out of existence. I seriously do not think the framers of the constitution envisioned this. Do you?

Yes I do. The framers detested the idea of tyranny of the majority. That is why they formed a republic and not a true democracy and added checks and balances of power. Thomas Jefferson wrote the senate rules with these thoughts in mind.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57626
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:47 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:So down the road, If the republicans take over the senate, retain their majority in the house, and win the white house. And they then repeal Obamacare, you'll be A-Okay with the repeal of the filibuster right?

Absolutely, and I'd like to see the thing written out of existence. I seriously do not think the framers of the constitution envisioned this. Do you?

Yes I do. The framers detested the idea of tyranny of the majority. That is why they formed a republic and not a true democracy and added checks and balances of power. Thomas Jefferson wrote the senate rules with these thoughts in mind.

Well, we've been down this road on the 2nd, haven't we? Not sure I care to go there again, but if the framers detested the tyranny of the majority so much, why didn't they write super-majorities into the constitution from jump, instead of reserving it for only a select few procedures, and allowing a simple majority to preside over most government actions? I'll tell you why……because they knew that the machinery of government would grind to a halt if they did, and unlike you, they didn't see that as a good thing
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:06 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:So down the road, If the republicans take over the senate, retain their majority in the house, and win the white house. And they then repeal Obamacare, you'll be A-Okay with the repeal of the filibuster right?

Absolutely, and I'd like to see the thing written out of existence. I seriously do not think the framers of the constitution envisioned this. Do you?

Yes I do. The framers detested the idea of tyranny of the majority. That is why they formed a republic and not a true democracy and added checks and balances of power. Thomas Jefferson wrote the senate rules with these thoughts in mind.

Well, we've been down this road on the 2nd, haven't we? Not sure I care to go there again, but if the framers detested the tyranny of the majority so much, why didn't they write super-majorities into the constitution from jump, instead of reserving it for only a select few procedures, and allowing a simple majority to preside over most government actions? I'll tell you why……because they knew that the machinery of government would grind to a halt if they did, and unlike you, they didn't see that as a good thing

they did...

How many states does it take to change the Constitution?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57626
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:13 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:So down the road, If the republicans take over the senate, retain their majority in the house, and win the white house. And they then repeal Obamacare, you'll be A-Okay with the repeal of the filibuster right?

Absolutely, and I'd like to see the thing written out of existence. I seriously do not think the framers of the constitution envisioned this. Do you?

Yes I do. The framers detested the idea of tyranny of the majority. That is why they formed a republic and not a true democracy and added checks and balances of power. Thomas Jefferson wrote the senate rules with these thoughts in mind.

Well, we've been down this road on the 2nd, haven't we? Not sure I care to go there again, but if the framers detested the tyranny of the majority so much, why didn't they write super-majorities into the constitution from jump, instead of reserving it for only a select few procedures, and allowing a simple majority to preside over most government actions? I'll tell you why……because they knew that the machinery of government would grind to a halt if they did, and unlike you, they didn't see that as a good thing

they did...

How many states does it take to change the Constitution?

Exactly……..they reserved that super-majority for the really momentous procedures, not the everyday nuts and bolts stuff. They could easily have written it that way, but they didn't!! You're really foisting your own interpretation onto them here, and since you like to say you're a strict constitutionalist, I just don't know how you can do that. They could have made judicial appointments require a 2/3 majority, but they chose not to. With good reason
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:16 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:So down the road, If the republicans take over the senate, retain their majority in the house, and win the white house. And they then repeal Obamacare, you'll be A-Okay with the repeal of the filibuster right?

Absolutely, and I'd like to see the thing written out of existence. I seriously do not think the framers of the constitution envisioned this. Do you?

Yes I do. The framers detested the idea of tyranny of the majority. That is why they formed a republic and not a true democracy and added checks and balances of power. Thomas Jefferson wrote the senate rules with these thoughts in mind.

Well, we've been down this road on the 2nd, haven't we? Not sure I care to go there again, but if the framers detested the tyranny of the majority so much, why didn't they write super-majorities into the constitution from jump, instead of reserving it for only a select few procedures, and allowing a simple majority to preside over most government actions? I'll tell you why……because they knew that the machinery of government would grind to a halt if they did, and unlike you, they didn't see that as a good thing

they did...

How many states does it take to change the Constitution?

Exactly……..they reserved that super-majority for the really momentous procedures, not the everyday nuts and bolts stuff. They could easily have written it that way, but they didn't!! You're really foisting your own interpretation onto them here, and since you like to say you're a strict constitutionalist, I just don't know how you can do that. They could have made judicial appointments require a 2/3 majority, but they chose not to. With good reason

Glad you agree that the constitution should not be changed on a whim. Which is exactly why the minority should have the option to block radical judge appointments.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57626
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:25 pm

Only the framers didn't see it that way. Or they'd have said so and you couldn't have been clearer about it yourself, because they include supermajority restraints for the biggies, but not the nuts and bolts.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby assateague » Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:38 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
assateague wrote:Maybe Obama has an affinity for batshit crazy appointees? Just an idea.


As for the repubs, like I said, they have never done what you seem to be implying (change the rules, that is). Either way, I hate them all. And yes, I do mean that.

Only because democrats agreed to stop filibustering judicial appointees, right? That was the whole "Gang of Seven" thing I think. But you're right, it was never used as anything but a bully stick. Not invoked



I think it was 15 or 16. I believe the 7 was the savings and loan deal, but I could be very wrong.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby waterfowlman » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:24 pm

beretta24 wrote:Maybe he's trying to ram through or create more appointments? Maybe there's been more turn over? Maybe they are responding to the fact that he has been less engaged with senate members across the isle than past presidents. The last item has surely been documented. Maybe they are being purely obstructionist?

I didn't have time to review the other items impacted by filibusters. Do you know? I assume its a combination of the above.


Obama has been violating the constitution non stop the past few years and he knows it. He needs to stack the court in his favor to prepare for the coming legal crapstorm he's gonna be facing.
Rule Number One: Always use a sledge hammer to kill an ant.
User avatar
waterfowlman
SIR
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:35 pm
Location: Eastern Shore of Virginia

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:56 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:Only the framers didn't see it that way. Or they'd have said so and you couldn't have been clearer about it yourself, because they include supermajority restraints for the biggies, but not the nuts and bolts.

The original framers disagreed on a lot of things but the republicans that dominated the government in the early 1800s truly shaped the government, including modifying the constitution and congressional rules to guard against tyranny once the federalists were largely removed from power. And I do recognize today's republicans aren't Jeffersonian republicans.

The constitution and laws continued to evolve as they were tested. I think filibuster rules evolved later in the 1800s and 1900s simply because they hadn't been tested early on. I don't think its anymore complicated than that.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5992
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Gunnysway » Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:42 am

Once again... I think Madison explained the reason for the minority to retain some power quite well.


James Madison
"In a pure democracy, a minority faction poses little threat because it can be easily outvoted and suppressed. A majority faction, however, through popular vote, has the power to completely control the government. Therefore, modifications must be made to democratic government to keep the majority from oppressing minority groups or acting against the good of the nation.

A republic, the modified form of popular government proposed by the creators of the Constitution, could preserve popular government while allowing a measure of consideration for the rights of the minority. A republican government is run by representatives chosen by the people, rather than by the people themselves. Representatives, if wise and just, are more likely to vote with the interests of the people, rather than their own selfish passions. If a man is not allowed to judge himself in court, asks Madison, why should he be allowed to directly make judgments in the legislature? In both cases, he is both a party and an advocate in the decision, and would thus be too biased to make just decisions. When people are allowed to make their own laws, they will most likely have self-interest, rather than the public good at heart, and thus the majority will oppress the minority whenever it is to their advantage."
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:50 am

Gunnysway wrote:Once again... I think Madison explained the reason for the minority to retain some power quite well.


James Madison
"In a pure democracy, a minority faction poses little threat because it can be easily outvoted and suppressed. A majority faction, however, through popular vote, has the power to completely control the government. Therefore, modifications must be made to democratic government to keep the majority from oppressing minority groups or acting against the good of the nation.

A republic, the modified form of popular government proposed by the creators of the Constitution, could preserve popular government while allowing a measure of consideration for the rights of the minority. A republican government is run by representatives chosen by the people, rather than by the people themselves. Representatives, if wise and just, are more likely to vote with the interests of the people, rather than their own selfish passions. If a man is not allowed to judge himself in court, asks Madison, why should he be allowed to directly make judgments in the legislature? In both cases, he is both a party and an advocate in the decision, and would thus be too biased to make just decisions. When people are allowed to make their own laws, they will most likely have self-interest, rather than the public good at heart, and thus the majority will oppress the minority whenever it is to their advantage."

I don't think anyone's questioning the concept, GS. But nowhere does the filibuster get mentioned, and if he'd meant for that to be an actual tool of governmental procedure, why not say so? Why not put it right in the constitution in black and white? There certainly ARE some provisions that require a super-majority to pass, and since there are also a great many that do not, requiring merely a simple majority, may we not reasonably presume that the founders knew what they were doing, knew the difference between the two, and had no desire to see the machinery of government routinely impeded in the manner a filibuster imposes?
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:00 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
Gunnysway wrote:Once again... I think Madison explained the reason for the minority to retain some power quite well.


James Madison
"In a pure democracy, a minority faction poses little threat because it can be easily outvoted and suppressed. A majority faction, however, through popular vote, has the power to completely control the government. Therefore, modifications must be made to democratic government to keep the majority from oppressing minority groups or acting against the good of the nation.

A republic, the modified form of popular government proposed by the creators of the Constitution, could preserve popular government while allowing a measure of consideration for the rights of the minority. A republican government is run by representatives chosen by the people, rather than by the people themselves. Representatives, if wise and just, are more likely to vote with the interests of the people, rather than their own selfish passions. If a man is not allowed to judge himself in court, asks Madison, why should he be allowed to directly make judgments in the legislature? In both cases, he is both a party and an advocate in the decision, and would thus be too biased to make just decisions. When people are allowed to make their own laws, they will most likely have self-interest, rather than the public good at heart, and thus the majority will oppress the minority whenever it is to their advantage."

I don't think anyone's questioning the concept, GS. But nowhere does the filibuster get mentioned, and if he'd meant for that to be an actual tool of governmental procedure, why not say so? Why not put it right in the constitution in black and white? There certainly ARE some provisions that require a super-majority to pass, and since there are also a great many that do not, requiring merely a simple majority, may we not reasonably presume that the founders knew what they were doing, knew the difference between the two, and had no desire to see the machinery of government routinely impeded in the manner a filibuster imposes?

Tell me this, why not apply this principle to the senate rules? Why change it? Why should a simple majority rule? It's easy to ask why someone did or didn't do something 200 years ago. I believe Madison's reasoning, whether he thought it applied to the filibuster or not, should apply. It should hard to make changes and pass new laws.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5992
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:23 am

I think that the filibuster DOES change the original intent. My reasoning is that since the constitution was written to require super-majorities for some changes and simple majorities for others, that this is what the framers intended. That's what they wrote and in a million other contexts, conservatives demand that their writing be strictly interpreted. They make no mention of filibustering to achieve the effect of a super-majority in cases where a simple majority should prevail. If you're truly going to call yourself a strict constitutionalist, you're not going to be cool with this
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:30 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:I think that the filibuster DOES change the original intent. My reasoning is that since the constitution was written to require super-majorities for some changes and simple majorities for others, that this is what the framers intended. That's what they wrote and in a million other contexts, conservatives demand that their writing be strictly interpreted. They make no mention of filibustering to achieve the effect of a super-majority in cases where a simple majority should prevail. If you're truly going to call yourself a strict constitutionalist, you're not going to be cool with this

If the Senate were still appointments from State legislatures, I might would agree with you.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57626
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:38 am

Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:I think that the filibuster DOES change the original intent. My reasoning is that since the constitution was written to require super-majorities for some changes and simple majorities for others, that this is what the framers intended. That's what they wrote and in a million other contexts, conservatives demand that their writing be strictly interpreted. They make no mention of filibustering to achieve the effect of a super-majority in cases where a simple majority should prevail. If you're truly going to call yourself a strict constitutionalist, you're not going to be cool with this

If the Senate were still appointments from State legislatures, I might would agree with you.

I don't see how that effects the equation, Inda. If the intention is clearly spelled out like it is: Super majority for this, simple majority for that, what difference does it make how the senators got their positions? Look, I fully understand why you guys are always gonna love you some filibustering, because you love virtually anything that slows government down. Fine…..but don't kid yourselves into thinking that this is what the framers intended, and furthermore stop calling yourselves strict constitutionalists. Opportunistic constitutionalists fits a lot better
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests