Barry MacDonald - Editorial

The filibuster is a blocking tool used by the minority party to stop an especially partisan bill from become law. A filibuster prevents a bare majority from steamrolling the fewer party. To break a filibuster a few of the opposing party have to agree to vote with the majority party before the law proceeds to passing. In this way the majority and the minority have to work together to pass laws.

Filibustering techniques have been part of our history for over 200 years, and not just in the Senate: 150 years ago the filibuster was used in the House of Representatives.

Without some check on majority power it is easy to imagine wild swings in governance as power shifts from one party to the other, so that after some decades the original system would be completely forgotten and the substance of American government would be left to the whims of powerful demagogues. We Americans have always thought of ourselves as nation of laws, not of men.

There are many safeguards, or checks and balances, embedded in our wondrous system of government. The Founders feared demagogues who are good at whipping up the passions of the people. Demagogues play on people's fears, greed, and ambitions. Demagogues can confuse people through arguments for "righteous" justice, for example, convincing people that they have a right to the fruits of other people's labor.

Conservatives believe that the governmental redistribution of income at its present state of operation in America kills the spirit of independence and self-reliance that Americans should have. Demagogic arguments are a continuing danger to a healthy culture, at present leading Americans to an unhealthy dependence on government.

The writers of the Constitution designed our system to be hard to change. The system was meant to protect itself from ambitious would-be tyrants who lure people into giving up their liberties in exchange for unworthy promises. It is supposed to be hard to pass laws, to create a constitutional amendment, or to change the system itself.

A system of check and balances will create frustration and friction as various powers vie with each other. The larger party lashes out at the minorities' obstructions, and the smaller party stands up for minority rights. Politicians of either party always adopt their opponents' hysterical rhetoric when the majority and minority switch places and the shoe is on the other foot. This has gone on for centuries. The Constitution makes hypocrites of American politicians - this should be a source of humor.

An informed American should understand that when there are angry arguments and loud complaints in Congress, and nothing seems to be getting done, the American form of government is working as it should. We should also understand that when there is a compelling and just need for government to act, then members of both parties do combine to see that it is done.

The Senate Democrats took extraordinary steps in November to end the filibuster of the president's nominations of federal judges and executive appointments. First Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had to change the rules of the Senate in the middle of a congressional term - a rare occurrence. By long-standing tradition, a supermajority of votes is needed to change the rules of the Senate. But in a naked grasp of power contrary to the American spirit of government Harry Reid changed the rules by a simple majority vote, 52 for and 48 against - 3 Democrats voted with Republicans against the rules change.

Henceforth the president needs only a bare majority of 51 Senate votes for his judicial nominations and executive appointments to pass (before it took 60 votes for passage). From now on the president does not need any support from the opposing party to enact his will - this is a serious diminution of checks and balances. The road seems to be clear for the president to staff the judiciary and his cabinet of federal agencies with extreme partisans. The spirit of compromise seems to have been vanquished from the process of appointing critically important officers of state.

In addition, having established the precedent of changing Senate rules in the middle of a congressional term by a simple majority vote, from now on there are no fixed traditions that can't be dispensed with overnight. The road seems to be clear for the Senate to be governed in an extremely partisan fashion and for minority rights to be trampled.

Republicans are vowing revenge. Republicans are promising to escalate the partisan battle. Charles Grassley (R-IA) said:

The silver lining is that there will come a day when the roles are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for the Supreme Court.

Should we dispense with the drawn-out furor surrounding a Supreme Court nomination like those attending Robert Bork's and Clarence Thomas'? Should one party steamroll the other without a lengthy months-long spectacle? Supreme Court nominations are increasingly bitter flashpoints in which partisan differences are emblazoned in public consciousness.

But a rancorous nomination serves an important public purpose: it prevents the successful placement of a truly extreme nominee. Potential justices should not escape intense scrutiny by the American public - an important check on executive power.

The partisan rancor attending the placement of a Supreme Court Justice may be unpleasant, but Supreme Court Justices hold supremely important positions: there should be a thorough examination of them by the American people. Getting the right people on the Supreme Court is worth a little rancor.

If one party stoops to especially low, gutter, politics in the conduct of its business, it is the duty of the other party to expose it with vigor. Politics is not a place for timorous people.

Hope is not lost. I trust in the continuing genius of our Constitution. The filibuster was not written into the Constitution. It was a method that arose spontaneously in harmony with the spirit of American government. I believe the minority party will discover other methods to frustrate the ambitions of the majority, and the protection of minority rights will survive in new forms arising spontaneously.

As long as we remain awake to the importance of our precious liberties, so long will vigorous politicians come forth to defend minority rights. Harry Reid hasn't the power to put an end to minority rights, because minority rights are an inherited American freedom, and an inbred American instinct. *

We would like to thank the following people for their generous support of this journal (from 9/26/2013 to 11/23/2013): George E. Andrews, Joseph R. Beck, Charles Benscheidt, Ronald G. Benson, Gary K. Bressler, Mary & Fred Budworth, Thomas M. Burt, William C. Campion, Tommy D. Clark, William D. Collingwood, Garry W. Croudis, John D'Aloia, Peter R. DeMarco, Jeanne L. Dipaola, John H. Downs, Thomas Drake, Paul Warren Dynis, Francisco A. Figueroa, Joseph C. Firey, Reuben M. Freitas, William W. Frett, James R. Gaines, Gary D. Gillespie, Franz R. Gosset, Hollis J. Griffin, Elizabeth R. Harrigan, James E. Hartman, David L. & Mary L. Hauser, Bernhard Heersink, Daniel V. Hickey, Gregory A. Hight, Arthur H. Ivey, Burleigh Jacobs, Marilyn P. Jaeger, Charles W. Johnson, Louise Hinrichsen Jones, Edgar Jordan, Frank G. Kenski, Robert E. Kersey, Edward B. Kiolbasa, Thomas F. Kordonowy, Alan H. Lee, Rema MacDonald, Cary M. Maguire, George F. Manley, Robert P. Miller, King Odell, Thomas L. Olson, Gary Phillips, Linda R. Puzzio, Jack J. Quinn, David P. Renkert, Philip E. Rosine, John A. Schulte, Harry Richard Schumache, Alvan I. Shane, Thomas E. Snee, Robert E. Stacy, Philip Stark, Carl G. Stevenson, Norman Stewart, Frank T. Street, Michael S. Swisher, Terry C. Tarbell, Kenneth R. Thelen, Paul B. Thompson, Kevin Turner, Frank Villani, Alan Rufus Waters, Donald E. Westling, Robert F. Williams, W. Raymond Worman.