Because They Can’t Get Their Way, Mainstream Democrats Advocate Abolition of the U.S. Senate. Not Just the Filibuster, the Entire Senate.

posted at 8:10 pm on February 17, 2010 by
[ Moonbats ]   

You remember that “Constitution” thingy? You know, the anachronism from a bygone era, which Democrat politicians and judges take an oath to uphold and then promptly forget about — or claim that it’s a “living and breathing” document?

To show you how far left the Democrat Party has moved over the last couple of decades, a serious debate appears to be raging within the party over the role of the United States Senate. Not just procedures like the filibuster, mind you, but whether there actually should be a Senate at all.

The anti-American Statists — disguised as mainstream Democrats — are debating this topic over at Laura Flanders’ neck of the woods at FireDogLake in a panel discussion headlined “Should We Do Away With the Senate?”.

With the election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat, Democrats in DC seemed to give up on getting any major legislation passed. 59 votes (well, 58 and Joe Lieberman) was just not good enough. The blame has been flying–it’s Obama’s fault, Rahm Emanuel’s, Harry Reid’s–but what if the problem simply is the Senate?

What can we change? Would eliminating the filibuster–the so-called “nuclear option” back when Republicans were suggesting it–be enough, or is the Senate, with its two-Senators-per-state-regardless-of-population mandate, just too fundamentally undemocratic? We ask the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg, author of ¡OBÁMANOS!: The Rise of a New Political Era, Lawrence Lessig, Harvard professor and author of a new Nation cover story on the subject, and Nancy Scola of the Personal Democracy Forum.

The panel discussion involves four prominent Democrats who bandy about falsehoods — like “the filibuster is unconstitutional” — with reckless abandon.

The program ends with the suggestion that the United States Senate and the Electoral College both be eradicated.

This discussion aligns nicely with news that President Obama now plans to legislate by Executive Order and dispense with the niceties of working with Congress.

* * * * * * * * *

Like spoiled children, anti-American Leftists are willing to dispense with the Constitution and literally toss thousands of years of human experience down the memory hole because they can’t get their way.

Consider how the three branches of government came to be.

In Book VI of his Histories, the ancient Greek historian Polybius described three basic forms of government, each categorized by the number of those in power. He listed monarchy (rule by the one); aristocracy (rule by the few); and democracy (rule by the many). Polybius described, over time, how each type of government would gradually decline into their various corrupted forms of tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule, respectively.

Polybius believed that Republican Rome had designed a new form of government that could help check this inevitable decline. Rome combined all three forms of government — monarchy (its elected executives, called consuls); aristocracy (the Senate); and democracy (the popular assemblies). In this mixed form of goverment, each branch would check the corrupting ambitions and power of the others.

Aristotle and Cicero likewise praised the construction of a “mixed constitution” and the requirement of a separation of three powers within government.


The French nobleman and legal expert Charles-Louis de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu, studied the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. He believed that a properly designed government, in order to prevent tyranny, would require three branches of government. The British philosopher John Locke followed suit and his powerful works inspired Thomas Jefferson as he authored the Declaration of Independence.

As well, America’s Founding Fathers repeatedly cited Montesquieu’s seminal Spirit of the Laws and its emphasis on checks and balances within government. As James Madison wrote, “the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu.”

History teaches us that the decline of a society and the demise of a government comes with the institutionalization of corruption and a wanton disregard for the written law. Such is our situation today, wherein the states have become puppets of an all-powerful federal government that confiscates more and more private property while exerting increasing control over every aspect of our lives.

The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the Constitution, which instantiates our carefully designed system of private property, God-given individual liberties and free enterprise.

Yet today the Speaker of the House can’t articulate why a federal takeover of the entire health care system is constitutional. And mainstream Democrats seriously debate the destruction of the U.S. Senate.

This crowd of leftists are literally advocating the overthrow of the United States government. Tossing aside thousands of years of human experience and advocating a return to a centralized, authoritarian form of government that can’t work and has never worked.

What these Democrats offer is nothing less than treason.

 
Hat tip: W.   Cross-posted at: Doug Ross @ Journal.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What horrid people. Where do they come from? God help us.

rrpjr on February 17, 2010 at 8:29 PM

They come from our universities of “higher education” that has become a bastion of marxism.

Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 8:32 PM

The way the United States government works, presuming that Obama is a real ideologue rather than just another opportunist, he will have to do something dramatic. He has nearly three years to develop his schemes.

Skandia Recluse on February 17, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Hey no problem. Republicans can take the house faster then they can take the Senate. Or alternatively do away with the filibuster at about 2012 when the republicans will retake it.

I’d like to see what the Dems will have to say when that filibuster all of a sudden goes from being a block on the glorious socialist agenda to the tool to keep the fascist republicans in check.

I’m game if they are

though yes after about 2-3 years I’d want it returned. I don’t like the idea of it being permanently removed

Defector01 on February 17, 2010 at 8:56 PM

I think its time for us to go back to the original constitution and repeal the 17th Amendment.

Conservative Samizdat on February 17, 2010 at 9:03 PM

While we’re at it, should we also get rid of the House of Representatives? I mean, the President is elected by the people as a whole, so he should be trusted to enact whatever laws are necessary for the good of the whole. The Supreme Court can stay, but they should serve at the pleasure of the President.

And speaking of elections, they’re such a bother. Just install Obama for life, and let him choose his successor.

What could go wrong?

malclave on February 17, 2010 at 10:06 PM

The way the United States government works, presuming that Obama is a real ideologue rather than just another opportunist, he will have to do something dramatic. He has nearly three years to develop his schemes.

Skandia Recluse on February 17, 2010 at 8:39 PM

The problem for the left is on dicey issues Obama’s never done anything but vote ‘present’ all his political life. He wants Nancy to do the heavy lifting. Or Harry. Or Rahm. Or the big media. Or somebody. Not him.

Liberals ran Obama because his wonkish, bland personality and speech delivery assuaged voters in both the Democratic primary and in the general election that the first African-American president might have the tempraments of an Al Sharpton. And at the same time, they knew his promises of governing in the middle were a bunch of crap, but didn’t care because he was fooling the people he needed to fool. Where they went wrong was in thinking that along with lying about his agenda, he was also lying about his temperament and would suddenly turn into LBJ on steroids, taking no prisoners either within the conservative movement or the Blue Dog wing of his own party if they didn’t bow down to his agenda.

The left wanted Obama to be an autocrat, crushing dissent on the right and in the middle. They wanted him to put Bush and Cheney on trial for treason. They wanted him to shut down talk radio and Fox News. They wanted him to steamroll any federal or state laws that got in the way of their ideology. But Obama’s personality isn’t built that way, which is why he hired Rahm Emanuel to be his enforcer in the first place. And Rahm’s more interested in staying in power than ideological purity, which angers the left even more (especially when he calls them ‘f—–g retards’ over their intransigence).

So if Obama’s too weak to destroy the obstacles to their leftist ideology, than the only other answer is to push their destruction themselves. And if some on the left can call for the elimination of the U.S. Senate right now, my guess is by this fall you’ll see some on the left wondering why in such a crisis atmosphere can’t the general election be suspended for an indefinite period, so those in power in Washington don’t have to fear losing their jobs and will have the guts to enact the proper legislation.

jon1979 on February 17, 2010 at 10:54 PM

No surprise at all. The purpose of the Senate was always to be a brake on simple majoritarianism. It’s one of the checks and balances built into our system, explicitly intended to prevent current majorities from trampling the Constitution, and whatever minorities are being protected by it.

The Founders foresaw the day when Democrats would debate just exactly what they’re debating at FireDogLake. That’s why they endowed us with a bicameral legislature, and a Senate that empowers the states by giving each one the same number of members.

God bless ‘em, those Founders, every one.

J.E. Dyer on February 17, 2010 at 11:35 PM

by this fall you’ll see some on the left wondering why in such a crisis atmosphere can’t the general election be suspended for an indefinite period, so those in power in Washington don’t have to fear losing their jobs and will have the guts to enact the proper legislation.

After all, the country is “ungovernable.”

YehuditTX on February 17, 2010 at 11:38 PM

“When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” T.Jefferson

They ain’t sceered enuf yet. I am not talking about the people. The pucker factor increases monthly. Plus, doesn’t it seem so unlikely that most of our representatives hate our form of government? They need our cover to stand up and do what is right. Citing the Constitution as a reason for a stance should be all that is required.

GnuBreed on February 18, 2010 at 12:22 AM

“Thank god for the Internet, the most powerful political tool since the Kentucky long-rifle.

docjohn52 on February 18, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Were I to be looking at the bicameral legislature and thinking of how it might be reformed, I’d go an entirely different direction.

I’d vote to replace the current two branches of Congress with three. The House would represent the people, by headcount, as is roughly the case today (ignoring the gerrymander). The Senate would represent the interests of the country at large, and would continue to be elected based on the States of the Union. The Congress of the Commerce would represent the interests of the economy, that should raise all boats on its tide — the GDP would be divided by 500 and representatives for each 1/500 would be selected by those who earned it.

Only when all three branches of the legislature should agree on a bill, and it be signed by the executive, would it become law.

cthulhu on February 18, 2010 at 12:59 AM

Yes, these people are children who have yet to leave the protected confines of elite middle school playgrounds. There is NO difference between them and current middle schoolers save only that their rhetoric contains more syllables.

However their behavior is VERY troublesome….

Money term: “Crisis Atmosphere.” In case no one here has noticed, the volumes of data regarding so called “right-wing extremism” is large, and the volume in which the stridency of that message is delivered is very loud. It seems almost, dare I say, provocative.

Wasn’t it just yesterday, we were informed regarding the danger of “Beck inspired, racist conservative wingnuts storing up ammunition and guns, food, prepped and ready to take on the government…”

If it weren’t so silly…

lpierson on February 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM

I think its time for us to go back to the original constitution and repeal the 17th Amendment.

Conservative Samizdat on February 17, 2010 at 9:03 PM

I agree but think we should take one more step towards accountability by removing all Federal pay and benefits to the Representatives, Senators, and their staffs. All pay and benefits should ONLY be provided by the STATE that sent those elected officials to represent their interests at the Federal level. Pay and benefits could then be controlled directly by their constituents and not by the Representatives or Senators. Each of us are beholding to our Boss for our pay and benefits so why should it be any different for our elected officials? Additionally, why should the people of one State have their tax dollars spent on the salary and benefits for the Representatives and Senators from another State?

saltyrover on February 18, 2010 at 3:54 AM

Um. The three branches of government are the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. Not the Executive, the Senate, and the House of Represntitives.

percysunshine on February 18, 2010 at 8:04 AM

What these Democrats offer is nothing less than treason.

Nothing new there.

Midas on February 18, 2010 at 9:34 AM

cthulhu on February 18, 2010 at 12:59 AM

That’s a cool idea, though it shouldn’t be necessary if the existing three breanches actually follow the Constitution. I would be satisfied with a few new amendments that expressly prohibit government ownership of any previously private enterprise; allow any business owner to bring a suit directly to the Supreme Court to challenge any federal regulation that interferes with its business; and require Congress to pass individual bills for the budgets for each executive department by July 1, with a line-item veto power for the President and no earmarks or riders.

In my view, now that we have a 3+ trillion dollar government, Congress should be doing little but overseeing those expenditures and trying to reduce them, and there is more and more tyranny from massive spending bills that nobody reads and no individual member of Congress can challenge.

When I was in high school in the 1970s, I was a delegate to a state youth legislature where we were allowed to introduce any kind of bill or constitutional amendment we wanted. I introduced one to deny the right to vote to anyone who does not pay federal income tax or whose sole source of income is government. It was controversial but it passed. Even kids understand that you can’t maintain a free country once a majority can vote themselves bigger and bigger shares of everyone else’s income.

rockmom on February 18, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Please don’t paint all university faculty with the same broad brush. Christian conservatives are a growing constituency on college campuses, and many of the sixties radicals are at or nearing retirement. It is mostly the “Ivy League” schools that produce such extreme Marxists as Lessig and his ilk. If I were looking for a good school to which to send my children, the last place I would consider is Harvard (Yale, Princeton, Brown, etc) as it has become nothing more than an overpriced breeding ground for Gucci Marxists (thank you Maxine Hairston). The pendulum has swung wildly to the left, and as pendulums are wont to do, it will swing back to the right. In the meantime, we must be focused on bringing the House back to some semblance of order and constitutionality since we do not have the opportunity to take back the Senate until at least 2012. One way to start is not to elect any more Harvard graduates, like Obama.

College Prof on February 18, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Why not just repeal the 17th Amendment. One of the great progressive moments was conning the American people into accepting this travesty that doomed to States to an endless stream of unfunded mandates.

tarpon on February 18, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Too bad those who would fundamentally change our country to something more to their liking, can’t find a real job and have to pay their own bills instead of living off mom & dad’s money. They might be more concerned with getting the govmint off their backs and the debt being created for them and their children. We need smaller (fewer) govmint, lower taxes and a strong military. Not a federal commerce dept, health and human services dept, fed, sec, epa, housing and urban development, and on and on.

Kissmygrits on February 18, 2010 at 11:56 AM

….inspired Thomas Jefferson as he authored the Declaration of Independence.

The words in the Declaration belonged not just to Jefferson but to all the Founding Fathers. Jefferson was not recognized as the “author” of the Declaration until he had it inscribed upon his tombstone (he was his own best hagiographer). It is upon the shoulders of John Adams and others — both his contemporaries and the ancients — that Jefferson stands in the Memorial in D.C.

publiuspen on February 18, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Give them what they want. Shove them into the blue areas on this map and let them form their own government. Then, when it collapses in ruins, walk in and reclaim it.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png

These people are historically-illiterate maniacs, so all the talk about Polybius and Aristotle and Cicero is meaningless to them. Wringing our hands over that fact won’t change it and providing them with a functioning country in which they can continue to whine about not getting their way just ensures that, like the Biblical “poor”, they will always be with us. If FORCED to actually implement their ideas, they will either admit they don’t actually believe those things or, they will implement them with the inevitable huge flame-out those ideas will entail.

It’s often said that conservatives are adults and liberals are children, and so we should protect these children from the consequences of their ideas by using the Constitution to stop them. Well, screw that. Even if liberals are children, they’re not MY children. They want to live under a form of government which has never yet not degenerated into some form of hell on Earth? FINE! Just do it where the effects won’t impact ME.

venividivici on February 18, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Great review on the historical origin of the idea of three branches of government. Can you remind us who figured out that there should be two houses in a legislative branch?

joe_doufu on February 18, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Yes, it’s extremely difficult getting your way in the US government. But that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. If the Democrats with 60 votes in the Senate and 260 or so votes in the House have trouble getting what they want perhaps that’s a clue to the fact that they haven’t convinced enough people over a long enough period of time that what they want is good for America. After all, it has been done in the past, it just takes more than a few rousing speeches. Basically, all it takes is time and someone smart enough to draw in the doubtful. Is that asking too much?

Fred 2 on February 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM

If one thinks the general population is ticked off now, just imagine if this were tried! My poor excuse for a Senator, Jeanne Shaheen is a co-sponsor of the get rid of the filibuster bill. The woman, while she has good manners and a soothing voice(trying to say something nice here), has not had an original thought in her life. This co-sponsorship is typical of her puppet like behavior.

jeanie on February 18, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Basically, all it takes is time and someone smart enough to draw in the doubtful. Is that asking too much?

Fred 2 on February 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM

It also takes the policy idea not being dumber than a box of rocks. Indeed that may even be preferable to having a slick salesman at the helm.

joe_doufu on February 18, 2010 at 1:42 PM

And speaking of elections, they’re such a bother. Just install Obama for life, and let him choose his successor.

What could go wrong?

malclave on February 17, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Well we know elections are an inconvenience to getting things done the way they get done in China. Not to mention the evils of corporate money in campaigns. As long as we’re getting rid of the Senate, let’s get rid of the First Amendment, naturally the Second, heck, let’s get rid of the whole Bill of Rights, and we might as well dump the whole Constitution — which was a charter of “negative rights” anyhow. Just make Dear Liar President for Life.

These people are not merely un-American, they are actively anti-American.

rbj on February 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Congress was always supposed to pass individual funding bills, but that hasn’t happened in a long time and I see no way to enforce it.

Make Impoundment an explicit power of the executive, which Congress can override with a two-thirds majority in each house. (I.e., both the House and the Senate need a two-thirds majority to override.) Oh, and it has to be by a roll-call vote, and the results have to be publicly available the next day.

LarryD on February 18, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Can you remind us who figured out that there should be two houses in a legislative branch?

joe_doufu on February 18, 2010 at 1:21 PM

The bicameral legislature is a result of the Connecticut Compromise at the Constitutional Convention, suggested by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth.

MassVictim on February 18, 2010 at 4:49 PM

The bicameral legislature is a result of the Connecticut Compromise at the Constitutional Convention, suggested by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth.

MassVictim on February 18, 2010 at 4:49 PM

The Massachusetts’ Constitution authored by John Adams and ratified in 1780 was the first to propose a bicameral legislature. Was it not also in his Thoughts On Government in 1776?

publiuspen on February 18, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Doing this would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Good luck getting 2/3′s to agree!

BlameAmericaLast on February 18, 2010 at 9:00 PM

with its two-Senators-per-state-regardless-of-population mandate, just too fundamentally undemocratic

Absolutely TRUE!

Good thing were a Republic, otherwise they would have a point in their pointy little heads!

DSchoen on February 18, 2010 at 9:55 PM

They come from our universities of “higher education” that has become a bastion of marxism.
Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 8:32 PM

How did they get into the universities without completing 8th grade civics?

“A primary objective should be to educate our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of liberties of the country.”
– George Washington

DSchoen on February 18, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Hey, are you Douglas Schoen?

BlameAmericaLast on February 19, 2010 at 6:40 AM

Give them what they want. Shove them into the blue areas on this map and let them form their own government. Then, when it collapses in ruins, walk in and reclaim it.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png

They want to live under a form of government which has never yet not degenerated into some form of hell on Earth? FINE! Just do it where the effects won’t impact ME.

venividivici on February 18, 2010 at 12:31 PM

I’ve said the exact same thing to lefties: let your opponents have ‘Dumbf–kistan’ and you can have everything else. Many of them are all for the idea.

If such a thing could be done peacefully it would turn out to be a win-win-win situation. Even if the right’s share of the continental US went to the far extreme, your economics would beat the daylights out of the lefty ‘nation’.

Dark-Star on February 21, 2010 at 2:58 PM

No surprise at all. The purpose of the Senate was always to be a brake on simple majoritarianism. It’s one of the checks and balances built into our system, explicitly intended to prevent current majorities from trampling the Constitution, and whatever minorities are being protected by it.

J.E. Dyer on February 17, 2010 at 11:35 PM

More importantly, the purpose of the Senate was to represent the interests of the sovereign states.

There’s no way the federal govt would have grown as large as it has, if the senators were still being appointed by state legislatures, as was the intention of the founding fathers.

MarkTheGreat on February 22, 2010 at 4:16 PM