Time to cut ties with Manchin

The Senate was always intended to be undemocratic.

 

Because adversary political processes produce a fairer result in the long run. The non-partisan commissions are just a way to disempower elected legislatures.

 

I am referring to his stand on the filibuster. On issues, after weighing the specific bill, he should vote the way his constituents want him to vote. Again...I don't believe "minority rule" is moderate. It was radical when John Calhoun of South Carolina used it prior to the Civil War and it's radical when McConnell uses it today. That said, let him use it at his own peril. Ultimately, the voters will decide. If they oppose the filibuster, they should vote those who favor it out of office.

 

No...it was "modeled" on the recognition of state sovereignty, but that has nothing to do with "minority rule."

 

Perhaps it's beneficial when used as intended...as in the context you are describing

 

And I stand by my opinion, that you are dead wrong. For starters, you are being hypocritical in, first, dismissing any arguments about the origins or past history of the filibuster--

-- and then trying to claim that, "the founding fathers would have lauded the Senate filibuster rule..."
This is the true nonsense. Besides the fact that the founders made no such rule, which you try to get around by predicting their reaction, were they to see, "the disaster the congress is today," I provided you the Alexander Hamilton quote on the filibuster idea (fyi, Hamilton was one of the most influential of our country's founders), in which he described our current situation to a "t," and utterly rejected the notion that, in your words, "If BOTH SIDES of the congress can't figure out whether or not a bill is in the best interests of country, it shouldn't become law." To the contrary, Hamilton writes, in Federalist #22, about the super-majority of the previous Articles of Confederation, that the actual effect or, "real operation," of giving, "a minority a negative upon the majority...to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser...is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of...(a) turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations & decisions of a respectable majority." In other words, he was not saying that subjecting the judgement of the majority to that of the minority was, "common sense."

Returning to the errors in your reply, I did not say that there was a racist origin to the filibuster, I said it was created through accident. Though I did quickly note its factual, racist application in the past-- which, luckily, we're not quite at the point you would like, when elements of racism can be dismissed with the disingenuous retort, "Yes, I know. Everything people do is racist"-- I, nevertheless, said that I was NOT basing my argument on its true origins (just getting them on the record, for those who might try to claim otherwise), but on common sense. So you also started off your argument by misrepresenting my argument, to be founded upon anti-racist sentiments, as well as baselessly claiming the endorsement of the founders, for your idea of common sense.

You say the purpose of the filibuster is to prevent the passage of partisan bills, generally-- what is your supporting proof for this? (You evidently just forgot to include it). I agreed that I have a great distaste for partisanship, myself, but saw a huge flaw in your logic, in your seemingly overlooking the phenomenon of partisan opposition, which I see as no better than partisan support. You also appear to fail to consider that, "the disaster the congress is today," as you say, without argument from me, includes & affects this objecting, partisan minority; that is, it is not merely a reason to be suspect of the motives of the partisans who are in the majority. That manner of remedy is a prescription for only government paralysis, as Hamilton also decries:

"In those EMERGENCIES of a nation, in which the Goodness or Badness, the Weakness or Strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a Necessity for ACTION. The public business MUST, in some way or other, GO FORWARD."

Though I generally think of myself more in line with Jefferson's views than Hamilton's, it turns out we all see common sense the same way, when it comes to allowing a minority of Senators to hold the government hostage, forcing any legislation to conform to their, minority idea of good sense, thereby abandoning the best judgement of the majority. In Hamilton's words,

"If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the MAJORITY, in order that something may be done, MUST CONFORM TO THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good."

Don't tell me, fmw, that if the founders could only see the situation, they'd agree with me; they clearly could foresee this situation, in fact probably did see it begin to manifest, human nature being what it is, but they had the good sense to nip it in the bud, rather than letting it develop into anything as bad as our current, sad state of affairs. And your, "common sense," solution to navigate through the, admittedly poorly-operating, Senate: stick with the rules that got us here. Well you can make that argument all day, for all I care, but you cannot credibly claim support for your position from America's founders. I'll let Hamilton preach me out:

"And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such (contemptible) compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously SUSPENDED, or fatally DEFEATED. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of INACTION. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.”

 

How can I be dead wrong? I expressed an opinion. You are the one trying to support partisan bills by bringing up unrelated facts. This isn't about facts. It is about a disagreement about partisan bills. I believe they should never become law and think they should. Why all the unrelated writing?

 

It is not, "unrelated," as anyone who read (& comprehended) it would know. And you would also know that I fault your description of this as merely whether or not "partisan" bills should be "allowed" to become law. So all our fates, when the entire Senate is partisan, should come down to whether or not one member of the opposition is willing to put the good of the nation over their partisan loyalties? Your ridiculous prescription could legitimately be seen as encouraging greater partisanship, and it is the same system that got us in our current, pathetic mess. Hair o' the dog, right?

And if purely partisan support is the root of all evil, what mental processes make you see purely partisan opposition as acceptable? It is not, "common sense;" and it is directly counter to the opinion of Alexander Hamilton, whose words make up a substantial part of all my, "unrelated writing."

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

The small states were made equal to the big states to protect minority rights.

 

Sure thing. The funny part, to me, is that I'm not even arguing against Joe Manchin or even the filibuster, provided (in both cases) we would just return the filibuster to the only historical basis that one could legitimately contend for it: that it would consist of people actually making an objecting argument. Can you give me a straight answer as to what, if anything, you object to, about that?

 

Don't think so...the Senate representation is of the sovereignty of the individual States. The House represents the sovereignty of the People. The Senate is the upper chamber, with more exclusive federal power in so much as it, not the House, approves appointments to the Executive Branch, the Judiciary and treaties. However, appropriation bills originate in the House (the power of the purse). And, BOTH chambers must approve taxes, laws and amendments to the Constitution. Impeachment indictments originate in the House (by a simple majority), but are tried in the Senate (and found guilty by a two-thirds majority). Since most States had their own Constitutions containing their own Bill of Rights, Madison and others did not initially think one was necessary in the U.S. Constitution. The anti-federalists (those opposing ratification of the Constitution) used the lack of such a federal Bill of Rights as a reason not to ratify. To avoid this complaint, the Federalists agreed to a Bill of Rights, as the first ten amendments to the Constitution. This ensured that the new Federal Government could not take away individual rights, most of which were already in the State Constitutions. As the United States, we are a sovereign democratic, republic federation of sovereign states, who in turn draw their sovereignty from the people themselves.

 

It's a tough call overall with the Republicans being extremists and obstructionists on pretty much everything. It would be nice to have bipartisanship, but their words and their actions in this regard are at polar opposites.

 

OK? 1X in the last 13 yrs.
And the agreement was on what? Bailout money to large banks and corps?

There was another agreement I recall, the Patriot Act, where the gov't took away some of our freedoms.

 

But I thought, that was why you and yours were making fun of President Trump supporters... how naive I was... not!

 

Yes, and . . . ? Making big and small states equal in the Senate gave the small states a check on big states -- a move to protect minority rights in an era of white male political homogeneity.

 

The Patriot Act was another fine bipartisan achievement. Thank you for reminding me.

 

Ah...if you mean wealthy, white slave owners in the South, I agree in part. But, they wanted as large a unified and wealthy a country as possible and those were the sovereign states that had contributed to the Revolution and were members of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles weren't working. There were border disputes between the States and none of them wanted to pay off the debts incurred during the Revolution. And, at that time, we still had an agrarian economy, with most of the wealth in the South based on slave labor, who were excluded from citizenship and the vote. Had the States (big and small) not been recognized as "sovereign," then the entire federation scheme would have been a farce. And, State sovereignty was merely a continuation of the colonies established by British royalty. A true revolution would have destroyed the colonial hierarchies, erased the colonial borders and freed the slaves. Few, if any, of the "founding fathers" wanted that. What most did want was freedom from British taxation and the right to expand westward, with a federal government to replace the British Crown and Parliament. The big state - little state controversy was a recognition of the British made colonial system and the colonists who inherited it.

 

Exactly. There's a reason for that. Elected legislatures have time and again proven themselves to be incapable of acting in non-partisan ways. Here in CO the establishment of a non-partisan commission was a ballot measure approved by the majority.

https://redistricting.colorado.gov/content/legislative-redistricting

 

I don't think taking away my freedoms is a fine bipartisan achievement. Not sure why you do.

But it does show the 2 parties will work together to take away personal freedoms.
Or to bail out their large banks and corporations. Again showing how they are 2 parties of the same coin.

But now, we are up to 2 times in 30 yrs they've worked together.
What a great accomplishment, hey?

I wouldn't have figured you for a big gov't bailout at taxpayers expenses and the big gov't taking away personal freedoms.

 

What "personal freedoms" has government taken away from you?

 

Many of the small states advocating for an undemocratic Senate were in the north. Virginia, the largest state at that time, was in the south. So much for that argument.
As for a "true" revolution, I'm not impressed by arguments based on anachronism. The American Revolution reverberated globally and began a political process that continues to this day. For an 18th century example please see Claude Manceron's five-volume history of the French Revolution, one volume of which is entitled The Wind from America.

 

Read on what was put in place with the Patriot Act.

...
The Act cuts back on Constitutional checks and balances, and Bill of Rights protections:

• It gives sweeping new powers of detention and surveillance to the Executive branch of government and law enforcement agencies, and depriving the Courts of meaningful judicial oversight to ensure that the law enforcement powers are not being abused.
• It gives the Secretary of State the authority to designate any group, foreign or domestic, as a terrorist organization, an authority that is not subject to review.
• It creates a broad new crime of “domestic terrorism” which is defined in Section 802 as “activities that (A) involves acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the US or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”
• It permits investigations based on lawful First Amendment activity if that activity can be tied somehow to intelligence purposes.
• It undermines the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment by eroding the line between intelligence gathering and gathering evidence for a criminal proceeding, and expands the ability of the government to spy through wiretaps, computer surveillance, access to medical, financial, business and educational records and secret searches of homes and offices.
• It undermines fair due process procedures guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and extended to non-citizens in over a century of US Supreme Court rulings, by permitting the government to detain non-citizens indefinitely even if they have never been convicted of a crime.

https://www.aclu-nj.org/theissues/opengovernment/theusapatriotactacivillibe

IMO, all the fed gov't has to do is try and make any sort of tie to something to intelligence gathering and they can bypass normal paths to obtain information.

It makes it easier for the gov't to spy.
I think trump cried fowl on it when he tried to claim Obama spied on him when trump was dealing with Russia.

Shortly after the passage, in order to get a home loan, I had to provide the bank all sorts of personal information about me that was not required to get a loan previously. Including showing a birth certificate and much more.

 

That's fine. What is done by a state can be undone by a state.

 

I'm non-ideological, and I lost no freedoms. The point of the Patriot Act was to win a war. And I'll close by noting there are literally hundreds of episodes of cooperation of the past three decades too low profile to generate much news.