Keep The Filibuster, Limit The Damage Congress Does To Americans

The Revolutionary Act ^ | 01/25/18

[Amendment10]

"One of the great priorities of the Framers in designing the Constitution was the concept of separation of powers and the decentralization of authority."

With all due respect to Justice Thomas, please consider the following.

Noting that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had decided not to give the power to vote for senators and presidents to ordinary voters, Justice Thomas may be overlooking the following.

It is necessary for the anti-constitutional republic Progressive Movement to effectively repeal constitutionally enumerated controls on both the senate and executive branches in order to unconstitutionally centralize government power. The Progressive Movement evidently does this by exploiting the voting power of ordinary, misguided citizens to enable the federal government to steal state powers.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

More specifically, while the Progressive Movement has long since seized control of the Senate, evidenced by the ratification of the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, today’s controversy over the “obsolete” electoral college is the last battle for the Progressive Movement to also win control of the executive branch.

Regarding the Senate’s 60 supermajority vote, unconstitutional imo, please consider the following.

First, constitutionally enumerated exceptions to the Senate's one vote rule aside, unlike representatives, the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention expressly guaranteed senators one vote.

• "Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

  (Each representative is not guaranteed one vote; "fractional" votes evidently permissible.)

• "Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote [emphasis added]."

Consider the following example concerning the 60 vote rule versus the Constitution.

If the 60 vote rule is in effect and the vote is split 50-50, then it's wrong to say that the vote fell short of the 60 needed to pass a bill imo.

Instead, the Senate has no choice but to apply the Constitution's one vote per senator guarantee with the vice president's power to cast the deciding vote.

"Article I, Section 3, Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

And even if the vote isn't split 50-50, unless a vote requires a constitutionally mandated supermajority to pass, the one vote per senator must still be respected imo, not politically repealed.

Otherwise, the Progressive Movement arguably wins the vote whenever the Constitution's one voter per senator, or the vice president's power to decide the vote, are ignored.

In fact, note that Thomas Jefferson, a president of the Senate at one time, had put it this way about ignoring parts of the Constitution.

"The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816.

Again, constitutional exceptions to the one vote rule aside, the Senate's 60 vote rule wrongly ignores the Constitution's one vote per senator rule imo.

Corrections, insights welcome.

[central_va]

Simple majority like the Constitution says. The extra Constitutional Senate “rules” need to go. Why do we need a “parliamentarian”?

[Jacquerie]

The 17th Amendment is indeed responsible for most of the assaults on free government these past 115 years.

Here is the first of three exhaustive squibs on our once senate of the states. I think you will enjoy them.

Excerpt:

Subtitle: Progressives Blow Up the Framers’ Constitution.

In continuance of the Senate of the States series, the next three squibs leave the Federal Convention and visit the decades leading to the destructive 17th Amendment (17A).

The 17A triggered a cascade of stunning downwind consequences, perhaps only second to the immediate post-Civil War amendments. As opposed to the 13th – 15th Amendments which reset society, the 17A reset our republican governing form. Overnight, the 17A transformed the Framers’ exquisite compound democratic/federal structure into a democratic form deadly to republics.