Re: Long term Democracy requires protecting the rights of minority from the majority

Long term Democracy
----
Why do democracies always fail? Two of the major reasons are: 1)
democracies generally progress through an initial period from bondage
to spiritual faith escalating to the point where the citizens become
totally dependent on the government to where they eventually revert
back to bondage, and 2) once the democracy shows signs of prosperity,
citizens vote themselves generous bounties from the public treasury.

On Dec 23, 1:03 pm, old fashion liberal <jgg1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the particular case of the Filibuster, 55 Senators want to strip that
> protector from 45 Senators...  Facts matter...  Procedural technicalities
> matter...  It is sad that facts and detail are ignored by so many
> "principled people"...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-democrats-try-to-r...
>
> >>> Both parties are situational ethicists regarding the filibuster — in
>
> 2005, a Republican Senate majority threatened to forbid filibusters of
> judicial nominees during George W. Bush's administration. It is, however,
> when filibusters impede the liberal agenda that excited editorials are
> written and solemn seminars convened to deplore the "constitutional crisis"
> of a "dysfunctional Congress."
>
>
>
> Recourse to filibusters has increased in tandem with, and partly because
> of, the 70 times Reid has used a parliamentary device ("filling the tree")
> to limit and even deny the minority's right to offer amendments to
> legislation. Furthermore, 69 times Reid has bypassed committees, bringing
> bills written in private directly to the Senate floor without any
> Republican participation. The filibuster is a means whereby the minority
> can give an overbearing majority an incentive to compromise. Yet
> progressives simultaneously complain about the filibuster and the absence
> of compromise.
>
> Under Senate rules, it takes 67 votes to change the rules. Reid, however,
> may decide that in January, on the first day of the new session, the
> supposedly "new" Senate can adopt new rules by a simple majority. This
> ignores the fact that the Senate, unlike the House, is a continuing body
> because, with staggered elections, no more than one-third of its members
> can be new — and not nearly that many ever are new — at any time.
>
> The Senate can adopt new rules by a simple majority only by ignoring its
> long-standing rules. In the 2005 argument about filibustering judicial
> nominees, Sen. Joe Biden believed, or was told he believed, this "arrogance
> of power" ignored the fact that "the Senate is not meant to be a place of
> pure majoritarianism."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.