It always depends on who is in power. Whoever that is, wants to change these
rules.
Miriam
_____
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of R. E. Driscoll Sr
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Interesting Op-Ed Article from WSJ
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ending-the-filibuster-would-hand-progressives-a-
huge-victory-1452813245
Ending the Filibuster Would Hand Progressives a Huge Victory
Senate rules to extend debate serve a distinctly conservative, and
constitutional, purpose.
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images/Moment RM
By
Ben Sasse
Jan. 14, 2016 6:14 p.m. ET
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/ending-the-filibuster-would-hand-progressives-a
-huge-victory-1452813245#livefyre-comment>
House and Senate Republicans met at a planning retreat in Baltimore the past
few days. My biggest takeaway has been how deeply House conservatives yearn
for a more "efficient" Senate.
In particular, many want an end to cloture and the filibuster-long-standing
rules that enable the minority to extend debate. It takes 60 rather than 51
votes to get anything important done in the 100-person Senate. Today that
hamstrings the GOP majority in both houses.
In response, I have three thoughts to share with fellow conservative
colleagues. First, I'm really frustrated too. Second, the filibuster flows
from the Founders' design of a system in which they wanted to make it hard,
not easy, for government to act. Third, the desire to limit debate so
government can move quickly is usually a radical, not a conservative,
instinct.
Let's start with our mutual frustration: What has really changed since
Republicans took over Congress? Were promises to roll back President Obama's
agenda of "fundamentally transforming" the nation empty rhetoric? Isn't it
time to enact a conservative agenda? If Senate Democrats stand in our way,
why not change the rules? After all-to quote the president-don't elections
have consequences?
Here's the problem. Progressives believe power-that is the government-is the
center of life. We don't. They place more faith in government than we do.
They want to make it easier, more "efficient," to grow the government. So
making it easier for government to act when Republicans are in the majority
might have consequences we will regret when we are next in the minority.
Consider the three most consequential moments in the growth of federal power
in the past century-the 1930s New Deal, the mid-1960s Great Society
programs, and the first two years of this administration that brought us,
among other things, ObamaCare. All occurred when Democrats had the White
House, a majority in Congress and, crucially, super majorities in the
Senate. They could act unimpeded by a Republican minority.
If Republicans eliminate the Senate's super majority requirements to pass
bills in the name of efficiency, it will guarantee that every time Democrats
have the presidency and even a bare majority in both houses of Congress,
they will party like it's 1936, 1965 and 2009. They will grow government,
and there will be nothing conservatives can do about it.
Imagine what Democratic majorities could do with no Senate filibuster: cap
and trade, a national gun registry, federal abolition of state right-to-work
laws, the abolition of secret-ballot union representation elections in favor
of card checks, record tax increases. Everything would be in play. Such a
Congress could tick off every box on Bernie Sanders's wish list, and
conservatives would have handed them the cudgel to do so.
Conservatism begins from a different starting point: Government is not the
center of life. It is not the source of our rights. Government exists to
provide the framework for ordered liberty-that is, to protect our God-given
rights so that free people can freely worship, freely associate, freely
build the next app, even freely root for Alabama football.
The Founders had this conception too. They limited the government because
they believed in nearly limitless human potential. They knew that America is
more than a group of Washington bureaucracies and their supplicants. The
genius of the Constitution is that it separates legislative, executive and
judicial powers. It checks each branch's power to limit the risk that
Washington smothers the dignity of individuals and the dynamism of local
communities-the real centers of life and love.
Conservatives might be tempted to curtail minority rights for supposedly
conservative policies, but that's playing with fire. Any short-term
political gain from undoing the filibuster comes at long-term expense.
Making the Senate more efficient might get a few bills to the president's
desk this year, but at the risk of accelerating our devolution into a
European-style winner-take-all system. Oh, and by the way, President Obama
would veto these conservative bills anyway.
The filibuster is an outgrowth of the Founders' vision of two distinct,
complementary legislative bodies. The House is built for offense. It closely
reflects public opinion with a two-year term. The Senate is built for
defense. It exists to cool the popular passions of the House, and to serve
as a brake on a too-powerful executive.
The Senate is not superior to the House, but it is different. Without the
filibuster, the gap between House and Senate diminishes and with it our
constitutional safeguards.
Rather than abandon the filibuster, conservatives should understand that
deliberative debate exists to protect the Constitution, and preserve the
nation's fundamentally conservative principles. We reject the notion that
Washington can manage all of life's challenges. We dismiss the fantasy that
we are only one election or one strongman away from solving life's problems
by power politics.
We should embrace debate. We should celebrate limited government. We should
seek to persuade. And we should use the floors of Congress in 2016 to tell
the American people what we would pursue if they send a Republican to the
White House in November.
Mr. Sasse is a Republican senator from Nebraska.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a
virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
