Pundits, public figures and the politically-oriented have awakened to the fact that a Senate procedural rule is undermining democracy in Congress.
Only those who spend too much time with Roberts Rules of Order can follow the tortured route through which a principled respect for free and full debate led to a situation in which it takes agreement from 60% of the Senators to bring a bill to the floor, which in effect means that it takes a supermajority to pass all legislation, originating in the House or Senate.
Because of the compromise which gave states two senators regardless of their population, the notion has arisen that the Founders intended the Senate to be undemocratic. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of majority vote in the Federalist Papers. The Constitution itself specifies the three instances in which a two-thirds vote is required.
The public weighed in to make the Senate more democratic when it passed the 17th amendment requiring the direct election of senators in 1913. This replaced the earlier provision that the state legislatures would name them.
With great gusto, the Republicans have used the so-called "invisible filibuster" 84 times since Obama was elected president, more than the total of all filibusters in the Congresses of the 1950s and 1960s.
This abuse has aroused those paying attention, but changing Rule 22 which introduced the painless filibuster will be like pulling an elephant out of hat. Too many senators on both sides of the aisle consider Senate traditions as holy writ, even though they've changed this rule three times. Much is made of the bad legislation super majorities have blocked without considering the many good laws that never get passed -- or how the difficulty of law-making in America feeds into voters' frustration and alienation.
Still the opening of the 112th Congress presents an opportunity for course correction, and some Senators are actually talking up reform proposals.
More than 300 historians, political scientists, and law profs from colleges and universities throughout the country have signed a petition calling upon their Senators "to restore majority rule to the United States Senate by revising the rules that now require the concurrence of 60 members before legislation can be brought to the floor."
Stay tuned. We'll know on January 5th whether the reformers can bring enough colleagues along to redeem democratic rule in the United States.
****
Dear colleague,
The sorry spectacle of one bill after another being defeated in the Senate despite having a majority of senators voting for it impels us to circulate this petition. We are asking our senators to change the rules that have empowered a minority of 41 senators and undermined the democratic principle of majority vote. An email message returned to appleby@history.ucla.edu will affirm your support, and your name, with affiliation, will be added to the petition which we intend to present to a group of senators when the new congress convenes in January.Joyce Appleby, History, UCLA, retired
Katy Harriger, Political Science, Wake Forest University
Senator Gary Hart, University of Colorado, Denver
Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School
Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School
Peter Onuf, History, University of Virginia
Jack Rakove, History, Stanford University
David RePass, Political Science, University of Connecticut, retired
John K. White, Political Science, Catholic UniversityThe Petition
We, the undersigned, American historians, political scientists, and legal scholars, call upon our senators to restore majority rule to the United States Senate by revising the rules that now require the concurrence of 60 members before legislation can be brought to the floor for debate and restoring majority vote for the passage of bills.
Thoughout the past 24 months we heard a neverending chorus of complaining and hand-wringing over the issue of the fillibuster. The liberal media and the Democrats provided no shortage of complaints about the process and some even called for it's legal discontinuation. The GOP - aka, "The Party Of NO" as they were called - continually used the filibuster and other tactics to delay if not defeat Democratic plans. President Obama even suggested at one point the fillibuster should be dropped in upcoming discussions on climate change, asking the GOP to "keep an open mind".
Then the unthinkable happened: the Democrats ignored the filibuster entirely on Healthcare and passed it via the process of reconciliation. As White House communications Director Dan Pfeiffer explained it: “The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform".
Having established the clear pattern of filibustering by the GOP, the Democrats must now ask themselves: Was it successful? The answer is an emphatic: yes, it was. The House is now in Republican hand's, with a weakened Senate, while the Tea Party movement gained strength and momentum.
All we need now to complete the rout is to get rid of that pesky XXII rule, and in 2012 when the Republicans regains the Senate, they will be able to cram through their own tea flavored tyranny with fortitude and dispatch.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Substitute the United States of America for congress.
The structure of our government and the rules by which they operate have served us well for over 200 years and we should take a long hard look at any fundamental changes before making them.
Leave this one alone.
I've wanted to change the filibuster for a long time, and I'm mad at every politician who hasn't committed to doing so.
Don't presume what all liberals want or think. You obviously are lacking in facts.
When will the Dems enable themselves to wield the power they have instead of blaming someone or something else for their failure to effect real change?
So let's roll up our sleeves and be the firewall.
Just one more way the Dems have blown their one chance.
The Dems have been so weak and inept, they would scew up ANYTHING they now try to do, even well--meaning efforts at actual democratic reform.
Yes we are.
And we fought WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the name of democracy.
---------------------------------
Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus (consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).[1] The term comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[2] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[3] Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[5] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no restrictions can apply to anyone wanting to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
By the way, in old Athens only the rich where allowed to vote - more or less the situation you find in America, where corporations can buy votes.
"Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating subject for establishing a democracy."
"In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights"
"In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute"
"Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government."
Also,
And we fought WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the name of democracy.
Care to rebut any or all of these?
Or are you just stuck on the word?
That is an absurd insight. Flaw riddled insight.
I am not sure that making the senate more democratic is a good thing; one must remember that we are not a democracy but rather a constitutional republic. Why don’t we start with some term limits to stop the professionalization of the congress?
I mean, seriously- you'd really prefer to have no say who represents you in the Senate?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/opinion/02mondale.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1293984067-+j4BxsiI73oJTdW9DTnhJQ