Bush/Frist v. U.S. Senate: NPR's Ron Elving provides an excellent analysis of the battle that is shaping up in the Senate. The ultra right wing in America is attempting to undermine the way the federal government in terms of how it has functioned from its inception.
Elving points out in his colum, "Watching Washington," that the Senate has always functioned as a place where our highest elected officials within the legislature as a body working towards consensus, something like a jury. And like a jury member, each senator had the right to argue his point before the body of the Senate as long as he or she needed in an attempt to sway the consensus of the complete body.
The effort to shift from a "super majority" of a 60 percent vote to stop discussion to a simple majority of 51 percent is a clear attempt to end the need to gain consensus so that positions taken by the executive branch which might be highly controversial can be imposed on the nation as a whole.
Bush has obvious reasons for wanting such a change imposed. He does not have a "super majority" following within the nation but he wants to rule as if he did.
Frist position has not been quite so obvious to the average citizen. Just the other day, I heard several college student puzzling over who the Republicans might offer up as a presidential candidate in 2008. Frist's name never came up. The average voter seems to be missing completely what is taking place.
Throughout the history of our country, we have recognized the benefits of having the legislature and the executive branch pitted against one another. In order to get things done, government had to arrive at a consensus. There had to be give and take, and the debate between the two branches would of necessity be made public so that the average citizen could judge the value of what was taking place.
In the sixties, we witnessed the problems that could develop when the exective office held the legislature in the palms of its hands. Pres. Johnson was able to wage a war without obtaining the consensus of the nation.
In the early seventies, we witnessed the benefits of having the two bodies serving as watch dogs, when the legislature voted to impeach Nixon.
Americans are often displeased with the Congress in Washington. It sometimes seems that nothing can get done. However, our system of checks and balances has worked well to prevent hasty actions like those that took place in the early thirties in Germany. We want daddy to fix things for us, but regardless of how we behave, we are not children. We must accept responsibility and not surrender our power to the man offering us candy.
As my grandpapy said, "Every criminal believes he is completely justified in the action he took."
Elving points out in his colum, "Watching Washington," that the Senate has always functioned as a place where our highest elected officials within the legislature as a body working towards consensus, something like a jury. And like a jury member, each senator had the right to argue his point before the body of the Senate as long as he or she needed in an attempt to sway the consensus of the complete body.
The effort to shift from a "super majority" of a 60 percent vote to stop discussion to a simple majority of 51 percent is a clear attempt to end the need to gain consensus so that positions taken by the executive branch which might be highly controversial can be imposed on the nation as a whole.
Bush has obvious reasons for wanting such a change imposed. He does not have a "super majority" following within the nation but he wants to rule as if he did.
Frist position has not been quite so obvious to the average citizen. Just the other day, I heard several college student puzzling over who the Republicans might offer up as a presidential candidate in 2008. Frist's name never came up. The average voter seems to be missing completely what is taking place.
Throughout the history of our country, we have recognized the benefits of having the legislature and the executive branch pitted against one another. In order to get things done, government had to arrive at a consensus. There had to be give and take, and the debate between the two branches would of necessity be made public so that the average citizen could judge the value of what was taking place.
In the sixties, we witnessed the problems that could develop when the exective office held the legislature in the palms of its hands. Pres. Johnson was able to wage a war without obtaining the consensus of the nation.
In the early seventies, we witnessed the benefits of having the two bodies serving as watch dogs, when the legislature voted to impeach Nixon.
Americans are often displeased with the Congress in Washington. It sometimes seems that nothing can get done. However, our system of checks and balances has worked well to prevent hasty actions like those that took place in the early thirties in Germany. We want daddy to fix things for us, but regardless of how we behave, we are not children. We must accept responsibility and not surrender our power to the man offering us candy.
As my grandpapy said, "Every criminal believes he is completely justified in the action he took."
posted by Jim | 10:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home