While there have been many books written that set forth the differences between the House and the Senate, the shorthand distinction has always been that the Senate is a “deliberative” body. Unlike the House, which often passes anything and everything in the heat of the current emotional climate, the Senate, wisely slows it down.
The filibuster rule (at least what’s left of it) is all that stands between the two bodies being legislatively identical. There’s still the 6 year vs 2 year term differences, as well as the state-wide vs legislative districts thing. But legislatively there would be no difference without the filibuster.
But what you are apparently failing to see (inasmuch as you are advocating a repeal of the filibuster rule), is that it is the ability for the minority to resist the majority rule that is our saving grace. As far as we’re concerned (and I’m putting all of us who despise the media in the same camp), is that “when” (not if) our side is in the minority at some future time, the future of this country as we know it will be over. Once any group gains absolute control over the two bodies and the presidency, they have the votes to make Friday Saturday if they so choose.
The difference between the two sides, which I’m sure you would agree, is that our side would not try to destroy this country––even if we were in absolute control––but their side would. Not simply because they’re Democrats, but because the other side is controlled by the media. And you must know that the media is totally against this country and everything that we believe it stands for. Yes, Obamacare must be repealed and replaced, but to destroy the Senate to make that happen is not only unwarranted, it is irresponsible.
Before 1789, the Senate was completely distinct from the House. That was how the Founding Fathers wisely set it up. Senators were “appointed” by the legislative bodies of each State House. they did not run for office. The media despised that provision. The Senators were beholding not to the citizens (at least not directly) but to the State governments, whose members, of course, were elected but the citizens.
But the media worked incessantly to change that Constitutional provision, and eventually did so with the passage of the 17th Amendment. As a result, the Senators are now beholding only to the media and the special interests groups who have the resources to influence a state-wide campaign. The media is now working on eliminating the filibuster rule to put them totally in control at some point in time in the not too distant future.
Many of the naysayers of this current health care plan are the same ones that criticized Trump on a regular basis during the primary and general election. I’m sure many of them sincerely believe that it should all be done at once. But the only way that can be accomplished is to eliminate the filibuster rule. The Democrats didn’t have to do that with Obamacare because they had 60 votes in the Senate. So think about what they would pass if they could do all that the media wants them to do and only need 50 votes! That alone should give you the shivers.
I supported Donald Trump for president. I did so because I believed he was a very intelligent and successful businessman who would bring this country back to its greatness––despite the opposition of the media. There were many times along the primary and general election road that I thought I would have done things much different than Trump. Nevertheless, I hung in there with him and often learned that what I thought was a mistake was simply Trump demonstrating how much further ahead of the media that he really is. Trump supports this approach, and if for no other reason, that’s one hell of an endorsement as far as I’m concerned.
“...the future of this country as we know it will be over...to destroy the Senate...” etc, etc.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant by “hyperbole”. Thanks for the added example.
Harry nuked us a few years ago, are we over now as a country? Is the Senate destroyed?
Of course, not.
The rest of your screed is about how you trust Trump more than common sense or the Constitution. Good luck with that.
I voted for the guy too - in the general there was no other choice for a man of reason. But Trump IS the establishment when it comes to fed level entitlements. He was quite clear about that all along.
You have put your faith in a man, not any sort of principle. And in a rule created/evolved in one half of one branch of one level of our govt. And seemingly that internal and always evolving rule, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, is more important to you than our founding principles.
I’m on Freedom’s side.
And, no, I’m not supporting your illogical plan to somehow magically achieve more freedom by having Republicans vote as Democrats. For subsidies, for mandates, for penalties and such.