Destroying the U.S. Senate
Dear Editor:
It looks like Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn), Majority Leader of the Senate will try to change the rules of that August body, and do away with the ability of the minority party to filibuster a matter before the Senate. His stated reason for doing so is so that there could be “a reasonable up-or-down vote on the judicial nominees that come to the floor,” of which there are a total of only seven outstanding. His true reason is to pander to the so called ‘moral,’ extreme, fanatical, religious right that he hopes to have as backers for a potential run for the presidency in 2008. Perhaps Dr. Frist, who I hope was a more reasonable doctor than he is senator, needs a lesson in the history of the United States.
A bicameral (two houses) legislative body was specified in the Constitution of the United States so that one house (House of Representatives) would represent a majority of the voters whether they were from small or large states. It was (and is) meant to be the most active of the two bodies and therefore have representative terms of only two years. The upper chamber (Senate) was set up with only two representatives from each state and was to be more of a balance to the active House of Representatives, as it would be more deliberative, slow to act, and thought provoking assembly. By having six year terms they would be less prone to the whims of the majority and could be more deliberative, almost like a debating society. Hence the ‘filibuster’ that would not allow the majority to take advantage of its position (as in the House), and force its will on the minority. If Dr. Frist would study the Constitutional Convention he will find this to be true. To do away with the right of filibuster would go 100% against the plan and wishes of our founding fathers, who wanted to protect the rights of all Americans, majority or minority. That was their desire whether dealing with politics or religion, which Dr. Frist wishes to mix together. Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has stated “I will vote against the nuclear option (doing away with the filibuster) because we won’t always be in the majority.” Good thinking.
Perhaps Dr. Frist, a self proclaimed religious man, should look to ancient times when the majority Romans killed the deliberative, thought provoking, filibustering, minority Jesus in his efforts to do the right thing. But then again, Dr. Frist would rather be president than be right.
It looks like Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn), Majority Leader of the Senate will try to change the rules of that August body, and do away with the ability of the minority party to filibuster a matter before the Senate. His stated reason for doing so is so that there could be “a reasonable up-or-down vote on the judicial nominees that come to the floor,” of which there are a total of only seven outstanding. His true reason is to pander to the so called ‘moral,’ extreme, fanatical, religious right that he hopes to have as backers for a potential run for the presidency in 2008. Perhaps Dr. Frist, who I hope was a more reasonable doctor than he is senator, needs a lesson in the history of the United States.
A bicameral (two houses) legislative body was specified in the Constitution of the United States so that one house (House of Representatives) would represent a majority of the voters whether they were from small or large states. It was (and is) meant to be the most active of the two bodies and therefore have representative terms of only two years. The upper chamber (Senate) was set up with only two representatives from each state and was to be more of a balance to the active House of Representatives, as it would be more deliberative, slow to act, and thought provoking assembly. By having six year terms they would be less prone to the whims of the majority and could be more deliberative, almost like a debating society. Hence the ‘filibuster’ that would not allow the majority to take advantage of its position (as in the House), and force its will on the minority. If Dr. Frist would study the Constitutional Convention he will find this to be true. To do away with the right of filibuster would go 100% against the plan and wishes of our founding fathers, who wanted to protect the rights of all Americans, majority or minority. That was their desire whether dealing with politics or religion, which Dr. Frist wishes to mix together. Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has stated “I will vote against the nuclear option (doing away with the filibuster) because we won’t always be in the majority.” Good thinking.
Perhaps Dr. Frist, a self proclaimed religious man, should look to ancient times when the majority Romans killed the deliberative, thought provoking, filibustering, minority Jesus in his efforts to do the right thing. But then again, Dr. Frist would rather be president than be right.
posted by Sam Schoolsky | 12:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home