AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
[EDITOR'S NOTE: In another thread, forum participant toolguru stated -- with regard to GOP use of the "nuclear option" to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court -- that "The founding fathers are surely rolling over in their graves." Toolguru also claimed to be curious to hear what the staunch defenders of the Constitution think about this. As a staunch defender of the Constitution, a former history major at Vanderbilt University and more than a half-century as a newspaper journalist who has composed a fair number of editorials, I'm more than happy to respond.]
The principle of majority rule was the underlying feature of democracy at the outset of our republic, and the Founding Fathers strongly felt that only a majority-rule government would prevent a potential tyranny by the minority.
The Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution did not want a situation in which a super-majority of votes would be needed to pass legislation or to confirm presidential appointments. Government by super-majority was tried as per The Articles Of Confederation, and the result was chaotic.
Therefore, super-majority requirements were limited to only a handful of situations in the Constitution: amending the Constitution, ratifying treaties, over-riding presidential vetoes, expelling members of Congress and impeachment of the president.
The framers of the Constitution did not want a minority of senators to, in essence, have veto power over congressional acts. Therefore, with the exceptions enumerated above, all other acts were meant to be by majority rule, which is the natural law of democracy.
Nothing related to a filibuster is mentioned in the Constitution, and in fact, the use of the filibuster didn't begin until a century ago, in 1917. The filibuster is a primary cause of public anger toward lawmakers and a loss of confidence in government, and the GOP should be praised, not condemned, for returning Supreme Court nominee confirmation to majority rule, as was originally intended.
The principle of majority rule was the underlying feature of democracy at the outset of our republic, and the Founding Fathers strongly felt that only a majority-rule government would prevent a potential tyranny by the minority.
The Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution did not want a situation in which a super-majority of votes would be needed to pass legislation or to confirm presidential appointments. Government by super-majority was tried as per The Articles Of Confederation, and the result was chaotic.
Therefore, super-majority requirements were limited to only a handful of situations in the Constitution: amending the Constitution, ratifying treaties, over-riding presidential vetoes, expelling members of Congress and impeachment of the president.
The framers of the Constitution did not want a minority of senators to, in essence, have veto power over congressional acts. Therefore, with the exceptions enumerated above, all other acts were meant to be by majority rule, which is the natural law of democracy.
Nothing related to a filibuster is mentioned in the Constitution, and in fact, the use of the filibuster didn't begin until a century ago, in 1917. The filibuster is a primary cause of public anger toward lawmakers and a loss of confidence in government, and the GOP should be praised, not condemned, for returning Supreme Court nominee confirmation to majority rule, as was originally intended.
