Teaser
I propose that the Republican Party can vastly improve its fortunes in the long-term by taking several (highly unlikely) steps right now: Openly declare its opposition to the US Senate's filibuster rule, arrange for at least some of its senators to join the currently pending lawsuit in opposition to this rule, and encourage GOP candidates for the Senate to campaign against that rule by declaring they will vote in favor of any cloture motion.
I will also encourage these candidates to include such a declaration as part of an enforceable, written contract, any violation of which will mean forfeiture of (if not their Senate seat) sizable personal assets. I consider this to be a form of bonding which, according to wikipedia*, means: "In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders." In exchange for your vote, the candidate holds himself to be "indebted" to such an extent that he would suffer financial loss were he to violate the terms of his written contract with you.
My proposal would make great strategic sense if the GOP calculates that it will never again be the minority party. By allowing the Democrats to have their way by simple-majority vote in the Senate, whatever evils come to pass could be laid directly on their doorstep. That would help in the GOP's 2016 campaign for the Presidency. And it would end the perception in the public's mind that Senate Republicans are obstructionists whose party richly deserves being labeled "The Party of No."
The national GOP needs to do whatever it can to clean up its image so it can become as successful as state GOP's have across the nation. According to Governor Scott Walker's book Unintimidated (pages 2 and 3):
QUOTE:
[As a side note here, I have bragging rights to having been the only candidate for President in the entire history of the United States who offered an enforceable, written contract* to the voters in exchange for their votes.]
Introduction
Certain developments have compelled me to update my reflections on this topic via today's post, which includes in its title "Part 1." I'm not sure I'll ever write more - Part 2, 3, etc. But I wanted to leave open the possibility, just in case any movement against the filibuster rule gains traction. Personally, I think that rule will survive all challenges. I further believe that that will be the primary cause of the destruction of the United States of America.
That's right, I said "destruction" rather than "decline as a world power." But I am not writing today to prove that claim. My primary goal is to inspire my readers to rethink any of their currently held prejudices concerning the logic and fairness of the filibuster rule, as well as what might be done to eliminate this rule.
I have posted on this blog concerning the US Senate's filibuster rule, including the following on April 27, 2013, entitled: "Invitation to sue Senate for filibustering":
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/invitation-to-sue-senate-for.html
As it turned out, my invitation to sue wasn't necessary, since (as I was unaware on the date of posting) that Common Cause had already brought suit. In fact, this press release link states that a 3-judge panel in DC was scheduled to hear this case on 1-21-14 at 9:30 AM, though as of this writing, these judges haven't yet rendered their opinion:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=13602233
An initial set-back
On Dec. 12, 2012, a judge dismissed Common Cause's lawsuit. I'm going to quote portions of an article about this dismissal, inserting my comments within green-highlighted brackets:
QUOTE:
(source: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/12/judge-voids-challenge-of-senate-filibuster-rule.html ):
(Note: I took the liberty of highlighting in yellow certain portions of the linked article.):
I propose that the Republican Party can vastly improve its fortunes in the long-term by taking several (highly unlikely) steps right now: Openly declare its opposition to the US Senate's filibuster rule, arrange for at least some of its senators to join the currently pending lawsuit in opposition to this rule, and encourage GOP candidates for the Senate to campaign against that rule by declaring they will vote in favor of any cloture motion.
I will also encourage these candidates to include such a declaration as part of an enforceable, written contract, any violation of which will mean forfeiture of (if not their Senate seat) sizable personal assets. I consider this to be a form of bonding which, according to wikipedia*, means: "In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders." In exchange for your vote, the candidate holds himself to be "indebted" to such an extent that he would suffer financial loss were he to violate the terms of his written contract with you.
My proposal would make great strategic sense if the GOP calculates that it will never again be the minority party. By allowing the Democrats to have their way by simple-majority vote in the Senate, whatever evils come to pass could be laid directly on their doorstep. That would help in the GOP's 2016 campaign for the Presidency. And it would end the perception in the public's mind that Senate Republicans are obstructionists whose party richly deserves being labeled "The Party of No."
The national GOP needs to do whatever it can to clean up its image so it can become as successful as state GOP's have across the nation. According to Governor Scott Walker's book Unintimidated (pages 2 and 3):
QUOTE:
- The number of GOP governors has risen since 2008 from twenty-one to thirty - just four short of the all-time high of thirty-four Republican governors in the 1920s.
- When President Obama first took office Republicans controlled just sixteen state houses of representatives and twenty state senate chambers. Today they control twenty-eight and twenty-nine, respectively. And they hold veto-proof majorities in sixteen states - a gain of three during the 2012 election that sent Obama back to the White House.
- Four years ago, Republicans controlled both the legislature and governor's mansion in just eight states. Today, the number is twenty-three - and nearly half our citizens live in states where both the legislature and the governorship are in Republican hands.
[As a side note here, I have bragging rights to having been the only candidate for President in the entire history of the United States who offered an enforceable, written contract* to the voters in exchange for their votes.]
Introduction
Certain developments have compelled me to update my reflections on this topic via today's post, which includes in its title "Part 1." I'm not sure I'll ever write more - Part 2, 3, etc. But I wanted to leave open the possibility, just in case any movement against the filibuster rule gains traction. Personally, I think that rule will survive all challenges. I further believe that that will be the primary cause of the destruction of the United States of America.
That's right, I said "destruction" rather than "decline as a world power." But I am not writing today to prove that claim. My primary goal is to inspire my readers to rethink any of their currently held prejudices concerning the logic and fairness of the filibuster rule, as well as what might be done to eliminate this rule.
I have posted on this blog concerning the US Senate's filibuster rule, including the following on April 27, 2013, entitled: "Invitation to sue Senate for filibustering":
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/invitation-to-sue-senate-for.html
As it turned out, my invitation to sue wasn't necessary, since (as I was unaware on the date of posting) that Common Cause had already brought suit. In fact, this press release link states that a 3-judge panel in DC was scheduled to hear this case on 1-21-14 at 9:30 AM, though as of this writing, these judges haven't yet rendered their opinion:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=13602233
An initial set-back
On Dec. 12, 2012, a judge dismissed Common Cause's lawsuit. I'm going to quote portions of an article about this dismissal, inserting my comments within green-highlighted brackets:
QUOTE:
(source: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/12/judge-voids-challenge-of-senate-filibuster-rule.html ):
(Note: I took the liberty of highlighting in yellow certain portions of the linked article.):
A federal judge in Washington this morning [12/12/12] dismissed a lawsuit [filed by Common Cause] that alleged the U.S. Senate filibuster rule is unconstitutional.
...
"The court acknowledges at the outset that the Filibuster Rule is an important and controversial issue," Sullivan wrote. In recent years, the judge continued, "even the mere threat of a filibuster is powerful enough to completely forestall legislative action. However, this court finds itself powerless to address this issue for two independent reasons."
[Powerless? A rule exists which prevents the Senate from doing its job - voting on the merits of a bill or nomination - and the Court claims it is "powerless" to intervene? And yet, that same Court has no problem declaring laws to be unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Even though the Court would be thwarting the outcome of both houses and, possibly, the Executive Branch. Even though such laws were passed by those sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution, and who therefore (presumably) have some competence as to its meaning.]
Sullivan said the plaintiffs,...Common Cause, four members of the House of Representatives and three individuals, do not have legal standing to challenge the filibuster rule. The judge rejected the argument that vote nullification—the alleged injury among the House members—reaches the threshold for legal standing.
[Legal standing...I take a very broad view of who should have legal standing when it comes to Constitutional issues. Since the Preamble states, "We the people...ordain and establish this Constitution...," then any citizen should have legal standing to issue a challenge whenever any part of that Constitution is being violated.]
[Suppose one of the plaintiffs happened to be a man who was denied an extension of his unemployment benefits simply because the Senate (as recently happened) fell one vote short of breaking a filibuster. The House had passed this bill and the President said he'd sign it. So it was a done deal except for the fact the Senate requires a supermajority (by means of the filibuster rule) to pass any legislation. Regardless, the judge would still rule this man didn't have standing to sue.]
... [Sullivan said,] "Nowhere does the Constitution contain express requirements regarding the proper length of, or method for, the Senate to debate proposed legislation."
[The Constitution doesn't mention the concept of debate at all. Since Senate rules allow filibustering Senators to talk about anything (even Green Eggs and Ham, per Senator Cruz), it's conceivable that the topic of debate wouldn't be addressed at all! And yet, the Court would find itself powerless to even address debates that are so grossly off-topic. "Debate" on the floor of the Senate isn't necessary since pro- and con- Senators (not to mention lobbyists) are more than capable of creating lists of bullet-points in an attempt to change minds. Not to mention engaging in dialogue in each other's offices.]
The internal proceedings of the legislative branch, Sullivan said, "are beyond the jurisdiction of this court."
[So why was it necessary to address the issue of legal standing at all?]
...
The plaintiffs in the case include undocumented residents who would have been granted a chance to obtain citizenship through the DREAM Act. The legislation died in the Senate amid a filibuster. "The majority was not allowed to even debate on it," Bondurant said at the hearing. "The majority is hamstrung by its own rules."
[Hamstrung? It could be argued that both political parties find it to their advantage to keep the filibuster rule on the books, since they each realize they might be the minority party in the future and would like to have this blocking mechanism at their disposal at that time. So this rule exists for the benefit of the political parties, which were not even mentioned in the Constitution. Frankly? I would consider the Dem/Pub parties to be unconstitutional or at least to be a monopoly in restraint of the free and open exchange of ideas - here I'm trying to invoke the rationale underlying the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.]
The Office of Senate Legal Counsel urged Sullivan to dismiss the suit on standing grounds and the judicial branch's lack of authority to change internal Senate rules. "That's not vote nullification if the Senate fails to make a vote," Senate lawyer Thomas Caballero said at the hearing on December 10.
[But the Senate did make a vote - a vote to invoke cloture (that is, to end debate). It's true enough, as Caballero was trying to say, that the Senate failed to make a vote directly on the bill itself. But that failure was due to the existence of the filibuster rule which requires at least 60 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate. Even if all of the Senators felt there was really nothing left to say, opponents wouldn't vote to end debate since that was to be their only way to defeat a popular bill. Therefore, their true motive had nothing to do with debate.]
[And, as I'd posted earlier (see the first link cited in this post, above), requiring a supermajority vote is in violation of our "one man, one vote" rule (that is, that all Senators are to be equal to all other Senators). Wouldn't we find it outrageous if Senate rules allowed male Senators to have two votes, while females got only one? Or if those with more seniority would get (say) an extra tenth of a vote each time they got reelected? And yet, as things stand now, a senator who is in the majority during a cloture vote finds that his vote is in fact not equal to the vote-power of a minority Senator.]
...
:UNQUOTE.
Why bother?
I am amazed that the mainstream media has totally downplayed the possibility that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional. That lack of criticism is one of the prices we pay in this country for having a corporate media beholden to whatever official party line comes out of Washington, DC. More and more people are starting to notice this, which encourages a deepening resentment of both the media and their party masters.
Hopefully, this will in turn cause people to ask themselves, "What can I do about this?" We're not as powerless as we think. At this point, I direct you to "Independents, it's time to seize the primaries" at this link:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/10/independents-its-time-to-seize-primaries.html
Even if (as I feel) the Common Cause lawsuit will be, once again, thrown out of court, it has the great value of raising consciousness.
Steven Searle, Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)...
"The court acknowledges at the outset that the Filibuster Rule is an important and controversial issue," Sullivan wrote. In recent years, the judge continued, "even the mere threat of a filibuster is powerful enough to completely forestall legislative action. However, this court finds itself powerless to address this issue for two independent reasons."
[Powerless? A rule exists which prevents the Senate from doing its job - voting on the merits of a bill or nomination - and the Court claims it is "powerless" to intervene? And yet, that same Court has no problem declaring laws to be unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Even though the Court would be thwarting the outcome of both houses and, possibly, the Executive Branch. Even though such laws were passed by those sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution, and who therefore (presumably) have some competence as to its meaning.]
Sullivan said the plaintiffs,...Common Cause, four members of the House of Representatives and three individuals, do not have legal standing to challenge the filibuster rule. The judge rejected the argument that vote nullification—the alleged injury among the House members—reaches the threshold for legal standing.
[Legal standing...I take a very broad view of who should have legal standing when it comes to Constitutional issues. Since the Preamble states, "We the people...ordain and establish this Constitution...," then any citizen should have legal standing to issue a challenge whenever any part of that Constitution is being violated.]
[Suppose one of the plaintiffs happened to be a man who was denied an extension of his unemployment benefits simply because the Senate (as recently happened) fell one vote short of breaking a filibuster. The House had passed this bill and the President said he'd sign it. So it was a done deal except for the fact the Senate requires a supermajority (by means of the filibuster rule) to pass any legislation. Regardless, the judge would still rule this man didn't have standing to sue.]
... [Sullivan said,] "Nowhere does the Constitution contain express requirements regarding the proper length of, or method for, the Senate to debate proposed legislation."
[The Constitution doesn't mention the concept of debate at all. Since Senate rules allow filibustering Senators to talk about anything (even Green Eggs and Ham, per Senator Cruz), it's conceivable that the topic of debate wouldn't be addressed at all! And yet, the Court would find itself powerless to even address debates that are so grossly off-topic. "Debate" on the floor of the Senate isn't necessary since pro- and con- Senators (not to mention lobbyists) are more than capable of creating lists of bullet-points in an attempt to change minds. Not to mention engaging in dialogue in each other's offices.]
The internal proceedings of the legislative branch, Sullivan said, "are beyond the jurisdiction of this court."
[So why was it necessary to address the issue of legal standing at all?]
...
The plaintiffs in the case include undocumented residents who would have been granted a chance to obtain citizenship through the DREAM Act. The legislation died in the Senate amid a filibuster. "The majority was not allowed to even debate on it," Bondurant said at the hearing. "The majority is hamstrung by its own rules."
[Hamstrung? It could be argued that both political parties find it to their advantage to keep the filibuster rule on the books, since they each realize they might be the minority party in the future and would like to have this blocking mechanism at their disposal at that time. So this rule exists for the benefit of the political parties, which were not even mentioned in the Constitution. Frankly? I would consider the Dem/Pub parties to be unconstitutional or at least to be a monopoly in restraint of the free and open exchange of ideas - here I'm trying to invoke the rationale underlying the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.]
The Office of Senate Legal Counsel urged Sullivan to dismiss the suit on standing grounds and the judicial branch's lack of authority to change internal Senate rules. "That's not vote nullification if the Senate fails to make a vote," Senate lawyer Thomas Caballero said at the hearing on December 10.
[But the Senate did make a vote - a vote to invoke cloture (that is, to end debate). It's true enough, as Caballero was trying to say, that the Senate failed to make a vote directly on the bill itself. But that failure was due to the existence of the filibuster rule which requires at least 60 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate. Even if all of the Senators felt there was really nothing left to say, opponents wouldn't vote to end debate since that was to be their only way to defeat a popular bill. Therefore, their true motive had nothing to do with debate.]
[And, as I'd posted earlier (see the first link cited in this post, above), requiring a supermajority vote is in violation of our "one man, one vote" rule (that is, that all Senators are to be equal to all other Senators). Wouldn't we find it outrageous if Senate rules allowed male Senators to have two votes, while females got only one? Or if those with more seniority would get (say) an extra tenth of a vote each time they got reelected? And yet, as things stand now, a senator who is in the majority during a cloture vote finds that his vote is in fact not equal to the vote-power of a minority Senator.]
...
:UNQUOTE.
Why bother?
I am amazed that the mainstream media has totally downplayed the possibility that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional. That lack of criticism is one of the prices we pay in this country for having a corporate media beholden to whatever official party line comes out of Washington, DC. More and more people are starting to notice this, which encourages a deepening resentment of both the media and their party masters.
Hopefully, this will in turn cause people to ask themselves, "What can I do about this?" We're not as powerless as we think. At this point, I direct you to "Independents, it's time to seize the primaries" at this link:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/10/independents-its-time-to-seize-primaries.html
Even if (as I feel) the Common Cause lawsuit will be, once again, thrown out of court, it has the great value of raising consciousness.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
wikipedia* - source of definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_(finance)
enforceable, written contract* - A copy of this contract can be seen via this link:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html
No comments:
Post a Comment