Without the filibuster or the threat of extended debate, there exists no leverage with which to bargain for the offering of an amendment. All force to effect compromise between the parties will be lost. Demands for hearings will languish. The President can simply rule. The President of the United States can simply rule by Executive order, if his party controls both Houses of Congress and majority rule reigns supreme. In such a world, the minority will be crushed, the power of dissenting views will be diminished, and freedom of speech will be attenuated. The uniquely American concept of the independent individual asserting his or her own views, proclaiming personal dignity through the courage of free speech will forever have been blighted.The so-called "nuclear option" people are talking about is the Republican effort to neuter the Senate, allowing Bush to get his appointees confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the current 60 votes needed. It's standard practice - if the rules don't let you do what you want, change the rules. Of course, as Sen. Byrd notes, this process, taken far enough, has some nasty implications.
The saving grace in all this is that the US Constitution is incredibly hard to amend. However, I think Republicans control 2/3 of the statehouses already, so a few more years of ineffectual Democratic opposition, and Bush (or his successor) may have some truly frightening powers. I think the 2006 mid-term elections may be seen as a last hope for sanity in the US.
Don't forget - if they're Germany, we're Austria. The comparison to Hitler, by the way, isn't overreaching on my part - if you read SG's post, it's in the larger excerpt of Byrd's speech she posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment