Many politicians like to use the term slippery slope in many descriptions of controversial issues.
When the Constitution of the United States is abdicated in favor of a "compromise," then I think that is a slippery slope. Bill Clinton's judges all got voted on; there was no "filibuster" on votes for his judges. But now the minority party, the same democrat party threatens to filibuster if all of the President's judicial nominations are called for a vote. Some have offered, and now it appears the offer has been taken, for compromise. Although the business of the Senate has been preserved (the blackmail worked), the long-term consequences have me uneasy. For where one area of our Constitution can be changed to favor a particular point of view, then so can others. THAT, is what makes this scary.
What's next? Maybe compromise on the Bill of Rights?
"...Well, we're all for freedom of speech, Mr. Senator, but only speech that we like. Since what this particular group is saying is unpopular with the media and certain elements of our government, and just causes undo controversy, I don't think their speech is or should be protected in this so-called 'Freedom of Speech' part of the constitution. In order to avoid unnecessary problems with our legislative process, why don't we compromise on this issue, huh?"
[And BTW, you could substitute Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Bear Arms, etc., in that slot, and it still works!] What I see is the "government of the people, by the people and for the people," may eventually be a government of a small group, by compromisers, and for particular points of view. The majority that people voted in, as you may have noticed, doesn't have the voice that the people had called them to have.
Regardless of your party or preference in political philosophy, today's "compromise" is a slippery slope. I pray it won't lead to other dilution or subversion of our government.*
Until next time...
*[In a related story, authorities in Charlottesville, Virginia, have recently placed coils of wire around the coffin of Thomas Jefferson. Ever since today's announcement of a compromise on our constitution, the coffin has been spinning uncontrollably, and the electrical energy generated has been enough to power most of the eastern seaboard.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
There's a big difference between a "procedural trick" versus subverting the constitution and stripping the president of power to choose who that president wants as judicial nominees. A *BIG* difference. REGARDLESS OF ONE'S POLITICAL PARTY, SUBVERTING THE CONSTITUTION IS THE ISSUE HERE!
Who's running roughshod over 200 years of tradition? What tradition? A tradition of democratic control over the Senate, or a tradition of the filibuster? The senate rules concerning the filibuster ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, and have been changed SEVERAL TIMES over the years since the filibuster started. IN FACT, IT WAS DEMOCRATS JUST SEVEN SHORT YEARS AGO WHO WERE WANTING TO END FILIBUSTERS (Ted Kennedy, the principle speaker on the subject!) The current filibuster rules are only 30 or 40 years old, not 200+!!!
And NO, I don't think subverting the constitution is right, regardless of who it is doing it. If one wants to fight for power, then do it within the bounds of the US Constitution. Better yet, do it by getting elected. And therein lies the rub, because the current liberal democrat party CAN'T get elected. Why? Because the MAJORITY of people in American don't like what they stand for.
I tolerate dissention; in fact, I encourage it. So does the US Constitution. It's called voicing one's opinion, putting up bills for a vote, and doing things within the bounds of the US Constitution. And THAT'S WHAT I CELEBRATE. Democrats can say and do whatever they please to get their point across, and attempt to pursuade people to follow their point of view. But NO ONE should have the authority to change the US Constitutional process simply because they are in the minority and don't like the way the government is going because their party didn't get elected to power. Politics is politics; people will do what they can and pull the tricks they want to pull. Just don't mess with THE US CONSTITUTION. That makes me mad. (No one told me to feel this way; I look at the process with a critically thinking mind, and I come to my own conclusions.)
To equilibrate following the US Constitutional process with a totalitarian dictatorship of Orwell's "1984" is preposterous. No one is re-editing the media here (except Dan Rather.) It's less government, not more government with the current administration's philosophy. If anyone wants more governmental controls, more governmental programs, more governmental invasion into our lives, it has been, traditionally, the current democratic party.
1984? 40 years from then? I don't get it. 2024? I'll have to put the political science and computer science departments at Millikin on that one...
Oh wait, maybe it was "Animal Farm?"
Jackson has a point. Republicans did keep some of Clinton's nominations from being voted on. It wasnt right when they did it. It is not right when Democrats do it. Dems and Reps both lost in this deal. The right to filibuster or otherwise obsrtuct the Senate from voting IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. By not dealing with the filibuster now Frist is doing the same things dems are doing with Social Security. He is saying lets put it off for now . Let it become a problem for someone in the future to deal with.
Sponge, you are correct. Of course it wasn't right.
But according to Matt, "that's politics."
They have rules that don't allow filibusters on matters of national security, wartime matters, and other areas. So why not make a new rule, just like the Senate has done many times in the past? "No filibusters on judicial nominees." And no "back door vetoes" either.
I don't pretend to know all about the tricks and loop-holes that politicians use to get their way. I would hope that regardless of what they do, that the Constitution of the US is respected.
To quote Rush...
"I'll take the evangelicals, I'll take the NRA, I'll take the stockholders, I'll take the gun owners, I will take middle America, any day of the week.
You can have your union bosses, you can have your race business leaders who portray everybody of color in this country as still living in the depression and among slavery, and you can have your liberals because you're losing with all three groups."
[For a link to the picture that says it all:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7902
Have A Nice Day!]
I knew sooner or later that a post on the US Constitution would turn into a Bush-bash.
No one can predict the future these days, no, not even Rush. Too many variables, most of which are out of the US government's control.
I do know that if we do not learn from the mistakes of history then we are doomed to repeat them. I don't think that today's democratic party has learned that, since they are playing the same old games, and keep losing elections. They don't offer new ideas, they only bash their competition, participate in character assassinations, and attempt to use liberal judges to legislate from the bench. Where are the ideas that the democratic party has? Does anyone have a link for those? I would love to read them!!
And now they try to manuever by making backroom deals (that President of the Senate Frist does NOT recognize!) in order to hang on to a judicial filibuster that will get obliterated once it starts with the Constitutional Option.
Ain't politics interesting?
I mistakenly called Sen. Frist the President of the Senate. He is the Majority Leader. Ted Stevens from Alaska is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Post a Comment