Without filibuster, the Senate will be in the Western Pioneer era
To Recent editorial Published by Herald Leader, Aidan O’Brien argues that Senate filibuster is already just a political tool to support a flawed system. But this claim could not be far from the truth.
O’Brien begins with the claim that the founding father did not intend to have rules allowing filibuster, but this argument does not hold. It is illogical to argue that something must be wrong just because the founding father “unintentionally”. Our government system is intentionally designed to allow modifications and changes. The founding father must have known that almost 300 years (or 30 years) later, the political situation would not be the same as when the Constitution was ratified. .. Moreover, the mere creation of a bicameral legislature means the need for tools such as filibuster. Without filibuster, the House of Representatives and the Senate would operate essentially the same.
So why can’t we get rid of the Senate if we’re trying to get rid of filibuster? Who needs multiple rooms anyway?
Our bicameral conference is the most important element of bicameral and sustainable legislation. The House of Representatives can pass almost any bill with a simple majority vote, but the Senate requires 60 votes. In short, the Senate is where the law is amended or perhaps rationalized before it becomes a law nationwide. George Washington once said that the law had to go through a “senate saucer to cool it.”
For its unique purpose, the Senate must give the minority senators a fair representation, as well as the majority members. How is this done? Above all, filibuster is a major component. We do not live in a country where 51% of our population controls the whole, and the Senate is the main institution to ensure this. The countries where California and New York dominate the other 48 states are, at best, a complete failure of democracy.
Filibuster allows the minority to thwart legislation until the majority is willing to compromise and amend. This kind of discussion and concessions does not benefit anyone but Americans.
O’Brien further argues that Senator McConnell does not respect filibuster unless it benefits him. This is ridiculous.
In September 2015, 57 Republicans urged then-senate leader Mitch McConnell to remove the filibuster. McConnell, who was the majority leader from 2015 to 2021, certainly had many opportunities and even great pressure from his own party to remove the filibuster. That would have benefited him! However, McConnell refused to choose to respect the single facility that is most important to protect the balance of power in Congress. No one respects filibuster as much as Senator Mitch McConnell.
This is not the first attempt by the Democrats to change the rules to benefit them. In 2013, Senate Democrats changed the rule of requiring 60 votes from candidates to 50 votes for a successful confirmation. As they know, during the Republican majority, Senator McConnell was able to identify three Supreme Court judges and more than 50 circuit judges due to rule changes. “The biggest mistake I’ve ever made was to vote for a judge’s rule change,” said Senator John Tester (D-Mont.).
The main loser is the American when the majority of the Senate changes the rules to benefit only their party. Even if Democratic attempts to undermine our democracy are successful, when Republicans regain control, everything they do is simply abolished and replaced. If you want the balance and stability of democracy, filibuster must stop.
Jeffrey Profit is the chairman of the Republican National Committee at the University of Transylvania.