Obama grows backbone, uses Recess appointments.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Yahoo News

Obama announces 15 recess appointments, scolds GOP
GOP on health care repeal: 'Go for it'


AFP/File – US President Barack Obama walks out of the Oval Office at the White House to board the Marine One helicopter …
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer – Sun Mar 28, 6:30 am ET
WASHINGTON – Fed up with waiting, President Barack Obama announced Saturday he would bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs, wielding for the first time the blunt political tool known as the recess appointment.
The move immediately deepened the divide between the Democratic president and Republicans in the Senate following a long, bruising fight over health care. Obama revealed his decision by blistering Republicans, accusing them of holding up nominees for months solely to try to score a political advantage on him.

"I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government," Obama said in a statement.
The 15 appointees to boards and agencies include the contentious choice of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Republicans had blocked his nomination on grounds he would bring a radical pro-union agenda to the job, and they called on Obama not to appoint Becker over the recess.

Obama went ahead anyway, while also choosing a second member for the labor board so that four of its five slots will be filled. The board, which referees labor-management disputes, has had a majority of its seats vacant for more than two years, slowing its work and raising questions about the legality of its rulings.
Overall, Obama's appointments will take place throughout the week, allowing people to make the transition to their new jobs, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. The news of Becker's appointment drew the bulk of the ire from Republicans.
"Once again the administration showed that it had little respect for the time honored constitutional roles and procedures of Congress," said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama's foe in the 2008 presidential election. "This is clear payback by the administration to organized labor."

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have made recess appointments, which circumvents the Senate's authority to confirm nominees, when they could not overcome delays. President George W. Bush made more than 170 such appointments in his two-term presidency. President Bill Clinton made nearly 140.
Obama had been on record as warning of recess appointments if the Senate didn't act. He followed through at the end of a week in which his political standing was significantly bolstered by the party-line passage of a historic health care bill, a student loan overhaul and a hard-fought nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

The White House dropped the news in a press release on a quiet Saturday, with Obama at Camp David and lawmakers home in their districts.
The recess appointments mean the 15 people could serve in their jobs through the end of 2011, when the next Senate finishes its term. A recess appointment ends at the completion of the next Senate session or when a person is nominated and confirmed to the job, whichever comes first.
Obama filled two posts at the Treasury Department: Jeffrey Goldstein as under secretary for domestic finance and Michael Mundaca as assistant secretary for tax policy. He singled them out: "At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months."
On Becker, Republicans have held up his confirmation for months, saying they fear he would circumvent Congress to make labor laws more union-friendly.

Democrats had failed to overcome Republican delaying tactics on Becker's nomination, and all 41 GOP senators wrote to Obama on Thursday urging him not to appoint Becker over the break — to no avail. Becker is a top lawyer at the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO.
Labor unions were especially keen on getting Becker installed on the board that is responsible for certifying union elections and addressing unfair labor practices. Under a Democratic majority, the labor board could decide cases or make new rules that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. The board could allow speeded-up union elections that give employers less time to counter organizing drives.

The other pro-union lawyer Obama named to the board, Mark Pearce, has not faced opposition from Republicans.
The White House says its appointees have been awaiting a vote for an average of seven months.
Obama named three people to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which has also been operating without a quorum.
The Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid, welcomed Obama's move. "Regrettably, Senate Republicans have dedicated themselves to a failed strategy to cripple President Obama's economic initiatives by stalling key administration nominees at every turn," said Reid, the majority leader from Nevada.

Obama and Democratic leaders say he faces more obstruction, in terms of the number of pending nominees and the length of their delay in getting a vote, than Bush did. The hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington began long before Obama's presidency but remains as entrenched as ever, if not worse, during his term.
Already in a struggle with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over a financial overhaul, Obama now has another one over Becker. "The business community should be on red alert for radical changes that could significantly impair the ability of America's job creators to compete," the chamber said in a statement.
In February, Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes they needed to push through Becker's nomination. Two Democrats joined Republicans to halt Becker.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that Obama's move is "another episode of choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition."

___
Associated Press writer Sam Hananel contributed to this story

I will be the first to admit that when Bush did this exact same thing, it left me fuming and quite upset. What we see here is simply the same thing in reverse. I don't like that Obama "Has" to do this, but it is obviously y the ONLY way for him to get anyone past the GOP no nothings.

Also, the bellow is typical of comments left in the article.

If NObama wasn't trying to appoint nothing but Liberal Marxist Mao kissing $S@#$ stains, then Maybe some of these people would get through! Thank god that there is around 240 days left for NObama to screw as much stuff up as he can. I won't count health care because that will be repealed for being blatantly unconstitutional. So if the republicans block everything they can, we will be done with the little "o" without too much of this nation being taken over by his Nazi Thugs. He couldn't handle the pressure and when the republicans win the house and senate back in November with huge majorities (I can feel the liberal anxiety already!), can you stupid liberals say "lame duck", I knew that you could!

It warms my heart.

[aieeegrunt]

Well the Republicans are reaping what they sowed here. The worm may finally be turning.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that this is how representative government tends to die: the elected legislature becomes so dysfunctional that the only way to get anything done is to rely on the bureaucracy of the executive branch. Congress has already been pushed to the wayside in a lot of ways, and the new situation is worrying. Obama should (in theory) should be stepping back from the excessive use of power that we saw during the Bush administration, but he isn't... and arguably he can't, because every last bit of his agenda has to either be carried out over Congress's head entirely, or get bogged down in a swamp full of entrenched Republicans.

He can't work with Congress, so he gives up trying... and in the process, drastically reduces Congress's say in how the government operates.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I, for one, welcome Emperor Obama and his declaration of an AmericanPlanetary Empire that shall last a thousand years.

Now go forth. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy. Do what must be done!



In all seriousness, this is a major problem. Congress has become so malfunctional that it is literally incapable of operating government. It is in times specifically like this that a benign dictator is required to set things right.

Of course, the risks of a benign dictator turning into a malign dictator are about as high as the risks of an engine explosion running nitrous oxide and full turbo boost through it on the redline with the throttle wide open.

Ideally, at this kind of situation, we'd need a means for the legislature to be forcibly dissolved from "on high," but also a means to prevent the "on high" from dissolving legislatures until he gets one he wants. We have no such mechanism in the United States though, so we're kind of boned.


[Edit]Perhaps (theorizing here) the mechanism we need is for, say, a special panel composed of enough people to ensure one lone wolf isn't going to go off and screw everything up, but small enough to get something done. Three should be good... Say...

One member from each side of the aisle, and someone who's an outsider to the political process; perhaps even someone who cannot under any circumstances be an American citizen or have any business ties with American agencies. That person should also be a bona fide expert on constitutional law and pollitical theory. None of these people can hold any sort of public office whatsoever whilst serving.

They could only be called up to consider the situation at the behest of the President and/or a 3/4ths vote of the SCOTUS, and once called must decide within 30 days. The decision is in their hands alone; they get sequestered from all input or communication during the time. If two out of three agree the legislature is out of hand, the legislature is dissolved and all three are immediately removed from their positions, and forever barred from holding any sort of public office afterwards. If all three agree, then they may remain at their posts and (if they later resign) may hold office again.

Assuming that it became nessessary to do so, all seated members of congress - both chambers - are immediately dismissed. (Perhaps forbidden from running again.) Elections are held immediately to restart congress, whilst the House of Representatives is filled with appointees from the states (none of whom can be of any major pollitical party, and must be of a minor pollitical party or utterly apolotical) whose only authority is to vote on urgent funding issues.


I'm sure it's not a perfect idea as it stands, but I think it might contain the seed of an emergency reboot system for this sort of eventuality.

[Edi]

The thing with Bush recess appointments, as I recall, was that there were real objections on ground of competence instead of just political views (though there were objections on those grounds too). It's not good that recess appointments have to be used, but at this point it's clear that the Republicans are just getting their own medicine fed to them.

[ShadowDragon8685]

The thing with Bush recess appointments, as I recall, was that there were real objections on ground of competence instead of just political views (though there were objections on those grounds too). It's not good that recess appointments have to be used, but at this point it's clear that the Republicans are just getting their own medicine fed to them.

In this case that medicine is a mixture consisting of 3/4ths castor oil, 1/8th capsaicin and 1/8th Just Desert.

Schadenfreud is a tingly sensation that makes me feel fuzzy in the middle. In this case, I'm glad that recess appointments were used, because they were obviously nessessary, and they're a nice to the GOP.

[CaptainChewbacca]

How many of Bush's recess appointments lasted? They still have to get approved eventually, right?

[eion]

How many of Bush's recess appointments lasted? They still have to get approved eventually, right?

By the end of the next congressional session, which normally means by the end of the next calander year. In this case, Obama's recess appointments would have to be confirmed by the Senate no later than inaguration day 2011, if I understand the process correctly.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yahoo News

The 15 appointees to boards and agencies include the contentious choice of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Republicans had blocked his nomination on grounds he would bring a radical pro-union agenda to the job, and they called on Obama not to appoint Becker over the recess.

Obama went ahead anyway, while also choosing a second member for the labor board so that four of its five slots will be filled. The board, which referees labor-management disputes, has had a majority of its seats vacant for more than two years, slowing its work and raising questions about the legality of its rulings.
.....
"Once again the administration showed that it had little respect for the time honored constitutional roles and procedures of Congress," said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama's foe in the 2008 presidential election. "This is clear payback by the administration to organized labor."
...
Obama filled two posts at the Treasury Department: Jeffrey Goldstein as under secretary for domestic finance and Michael Mundaca as assistant secretary for tax policy. He singled them out: "At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months."
...
On Becker, Republicans have held up his confirmation for months, saying they fear he would circumvent Congress to make labor laws more union-friendly.
...
Democrats had failed to overcome Republican delaying tactics on Becker's nomination, and all 41 GOP senators wrote to Obama on Thursday urging him not to appoint Becker over the break — to no avail. Becker is a top lawyer at the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO.
Labor unions were especially keen on getting Becker installed on the board that is responsible for certifying union elections and addressing unfair labor practices. Under a Democratic majority, the labor board could decide cases or make new rules that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. The board could allow speeded-up union elections that give employers less time to counter organizing drives.
...
The other pro-union lawyer Obama named to the board, Mark Pearce, has not faced opposition from Republicans.
The White House says its appointees have been awaiting a vote for an average of seven months.
Obama named three people to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which has also been operating without a quorum.
....
Already in a struggle with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over a financial overhaul, Obama now has another one over Becker. "The business community should be on red alert for radical changes that could significantly impair the ability of America's job creators to compete," the chamber said in a statement.
....
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that Obama's move is "another episode of choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition."

What a joke, and this goes to show just how absurdly pro-business U.S. mainstream political and media culture is versus the civilized world. Heaven forbid workers are represented in even the most attenuated and corrupt establishment institutions by their own people! Meanwhile the Chamber of Commerce (check their eye-rolling current propaganda campaign), the largest lobbying organization there is, is treated by the article alongside elected officials as just some regular political participant. And remember, any use of the term "job creation" should always be subbed with "profit maximization" which is what they really mean. They always are talking about state-crony policies that increase profitability regardless if they feel the reluctant need to hire more workers, much less strengthen their pay or benefits. Heaven forbid workers have any means at their disposal whatsoever to push their agenda and struggle against business.

[Darth Wong]

I, for one, welcome Emperor Obama and his declaration of an AmericanPlanetary Empire that shall last a thousand years.

Now go forth. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy. Do what must be done!



In all seriousness, this is a major problem. Congress has become so malfunctional that it is literally incapable of operating government. It is in times specifically like this that a benign dictator is required to set things right.

Of course, the risks of a benign dictator turning into a malign dictator are about as high as the risks of an engine explosion running nitrous oxide and full turbo boost through it on the redline with the throttle wide open.

Ideally, at this kind of situation, we'd need a means for the legislature to be forcibly dissolved from "on high," but also a means to prevent the "on high" from dissolving legislatures until he gets one he wants. We have no such mechanism in the United States though, so we're kind of boned.


[Edit]Perhaps (theorizing here) the mechanism we need is for, say, a special panel composed of enough people to ensure one lone wolf isn't going to go off and screw everything up, but small enough to get something done. Three should be good... Say...

One member from each side of the aisle, and someone who's an outsider to the political process; perhaps even someone who cannot under any circumstances be an American citizen or have any business ties with American agencies. That person should also be a bona fide expert on constitutional law and pollitical theory. None of these people can hold any sort of public office whatsoever whilst serving.

They could only be called up to consider the situation at the behest of the President and/or a 3/4ths vote of the SCOTUS, and once called must decide within 30 days. The decision is in their hands alone; they get sequestered from all input or communication during the time. If two out of three agree the legislature is out of hand, the legislature is dissolved and all three are immediately removed from their positions, and forever barred from holding any sort of public office afterwards. If all three agree, then they may remain at their posts and (if they later resign) may hold office again.

Assuming that it became nessessary to do so, all seated members of congress - both chambers - are immediately dismissed. (Perhaps forbidden from running again.) Elections are held immediately to restart congress, whilst the House of Representatives is filled with appointees from the states (none of whom can be of any major pollitical party, and must be of a minor pollitical party or utterly apolotical) whose only authority is to vote on urgent funding issues.


I'm sure it's not a perfect idea as it stands, but I think it might contain the seed of an emergency reboot system for this sort of eventuality.

Why undertake such radical measures? Why not simply pass an amendment forcing Senate and Congress to respect simple majority votes for all routine passage of bills, rather than inventing various rules which (not coincidentally) make it more lucrative to be a congressman or senator, by increasing each individual's ability to hold up the government until he's placated?

[ShadowDragon8685]

Why undertake such radical measures? Why not simply pass an amendment forcing Senate and Congress to respect simple majority votes for all routine passage of bills, rather than inventing various rules which (not coincidentally) make it more lucrative to be a congressman or senator, by increasing each individual's ability to hold up the government until he's placated?

Emphasis mine.


In all seriousness, that might work, but you'd need a way to call for everybody to shut the fuck down and stick their hands up yay or nay. The fillibuster is the problem, and (sadly) it seems the mere threat of it is looking almost the same as actually using it.

One might say that perhaps there should be an absolute maximum limit of time on the duration a topic may be debated, but what if (unlikely, I know,) they actually get a real debate going?

One might also think that at any point someone can call a "vote to vote"; instead of the cloture thing we have now, if at least (say) half of the chamber; or 100% any given seated party is ready to vote, debate ceased immediately. But this would let a party which got reduced to a rump hijack "real" debate and bring it to a vote, too.

The other idea is the thought that someone else should be able to walk in and call a vote - such as the President having the power to tell Congress to sit down, shut up, stop wasting time and have an up-down vote.

Honestly it wouldn't solve the problem, though. Whatever means you use to break a fillibuster would (a) wind up being abused, and (b) only address a symptom of a broken legislature, not the actual problem of the broken legislature.

[eion]

Cloture is a "vote to vote". It basically says "We wish to no longer hear any debate on the subject" and since a bill passes with 51 votes, a successful cloture motion also passes the bill. Your proposal does not change that, you just basically recommended lowering the cloture threshold to 51. It'd be much simpler to just eliminate the filibuster altogether and just let the Senate function as any other normal legislature does.

[Simon_Jester]

In all seriousness, this is a major problem. Congress has become so malfunctional that it is literally incapable of operating government. It is in times specifically like this that a benign dictator is required to set things right...

[Edit]Perhaps (theorizing here) the mechanism we need is for, say, a special panel composed of enough people to ensure one lone wolf isn't going to go off and screw everything up, but small enough to get something done. Three should be good... Say...

The problem isn't the size of the legislature; it's that the parliamentary rules the legislature operates under make it trivially easy for a determined, disciplined minority to block all action. Reducing the size of the Senate wouldn't actually change anything if we didn't change the rules.

What we really need to do is either abolish the Senate and roll its functions into the House, or revert to the way Senators were chosen before the Seventeenth Amendment and make them appointed by the state legislature. That would remove the tendency for radical senators to win primary elections, and would make senators nigh-immune to the pressure of campaign finance... which has turned out to be a much more important pressure and a much greater threat to democracy than "mob rule" ever was.

They could only be called up to consider the situation at the behest of the President and/or a 3/4ths vote of the SCOTUS, and once called must decide within 30 days. The decision is in their hands alone; they get sequestered from all input or communication during the time. If two out of three agree the legislature is out of hand, the legislature is dissolved and all three are immediately removed from their positions, and forever barred from holding any sort of public office afterwards. If all three agree, then they may remain at their posts and (if they later resign) may hold office again.

You do realize how much pressure this puts on the two not to agree if one person remains in opposition, and conversely how much pressure this puts on the third person to agree if the other two remain determined to disband the legislature, right? All you're ever going to get are votes not to dissolve the legislature, or unanimous votes to do so.

I'm sure it's not a perfect idea as it stands, but I think it might contain the seed of an emergency reboot system for this sort of eventuality.

Plenty of parliamentary democracies have mechanisms for dissolving the legislature and holding new elections. It's not unprecedented. Arguably it's just one more way in which parliamentary democracy works better than American-style democracy.

[SirNitram]

Well, I have no desire to just remove a chunk of the government, nor hand it right back into the political cronies who are even cheaper to be paid off for Senators.

You want to remove stupid things like forcing cloture? Easy. Force the Vice President, in his position in the Senate, to rule on the Constitutionality of it. It dies. It contridicts the rules about a simple majority vote.

Oi. 'Let's give it back to politicians, so Senators are TOTALLY safe from being voted out.'

[ShadowDragon8685]

In all seriousness, this is a major problem. Congress has become so malfunctional that it is literally incapable of operating government. It is in times specifically like this that a benign dictator is required to set things right...

[Edit]Perhaps (theorizing here) the mechanism we need is for, say, a special panel composed of enough people to ensure one lone wolf isn't going to go off and screw everything up, but small enough to get something done. Three should be good... Say...

The problem isn't the size of the legislature; it's that the parliamentary rules the legislature operates under make it trivially easy for a determined, disciplined minority to block all action. Reducing the size of the Senate wouldn't actually change anything if we didn't change the rules.

I wasn't suggesting reducing the size of the senate at all.

What we really need to do is either abolish the Senate and roll its functions into the House, or revert to the way Senators were chosen before the Seventeenth Amendment and make them appointed by the state legislature. That would remove the tendency for radical senators to win primary elections, and would make senators nigh-immune to the pressure of campaign finance... which has turned out to be a much more important pressure and a much greater threat to democracy than "mob rule" ever was.

I don't like the idea of reverting the Senate to being appointed by State legislatures... But it might just be a better soloution than what we have now.

It just smacks too much of aristocracy to me, is all. Then again, now we have a... I dunno, what's the word for "rule by the richest."

I don't think it's a good idea, but it might be a less-worse idea than what we have now. Still, it would never pass in the first place.

[quiote]

They could only be called up to consider the situation at the behest of the President and/or a 3/4ths vote of the SCOTUS, and once called must decide within 30 days. The decision is in their hands alone; they get sequestered from all input or communication during the time. If two out of three agree the legislature is out of hand, the legislature is dissolved and all three are immediately removed from their positions, and forever barred from holding any sort of public office afterwards. If all three agree, then they may remain at their posts and (if they later resign) may hold office again.

You do realize how much pressure this puts on the two not to agree if one person remains in opposition, and conversely how much pressure this puts on the third person to agree if the other two remain determined to disband the legislature, right? All you're ever going to get are votes not to dissolve the legislature, or unanimous votes to do so.[/quote]

As far as pressure, obviously they'd get to walk away with a pension if and when they were ever called, to prevent the whole "two people being swayed by one" deal. As far as the third, good. If two people in such a position are convinced that the houses of legislature have become so malfunctional as to make it impossible to function and the third can be swayed by their arguments - or even a little incentive to keep his job - so be it.

In this case, I decided that the "safe" failure mode was in favor of dissoloution, not in favor of keeping the legislature, and to fail-safe. It could also be a straight up-down hidden-ballot vote, too...

Honestly, if anything, I'm worried that introducing partisan politicos into it would make it more likely that the Righttard and spineless democrat would go "no" simply so their friends all keep their jobs. I think that's the more likely failure point.

Anyway, I never said it was a perfect idea, it's just something I came up with in a few minutes whilst trying to think of a way to provide a mechanism for an emergency reboot of the American Congress.

Plenty of parliamentary democracies have mechanisms for dissolving the legislature and holding new elections. It's not unprecedented. Arguably it's just one more way in which parliamentary democracy works better than American-style democracy.

Yes, I know. That's what I was trying to come up with here. A way to heave the entire legislature out on their pork-stuffed, bacon-wrapped asses and try bringing in a new set.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Well, I have no desire to just remove a chunk of the government, nor hand it right back into the political cronies who are even cheaper to be paid off for Senators.

You want to remove stupid things like forcing cloture? Easy. Force the Vice President, in his position in the Senate, to rule on the Constitutionality of it. It dies. It contridicts the rules about a simple majority vote.

Oi. 'Let's give it back to politicians, so Senators are TOTALLY safe from being voted out.'

I think you've completely misunderstood my proposal or desire there.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I have no desire to just remove a chunk of the government, nor hand it right back into the political cronies who are even cheaper to be paid off for Senators.

You want to remove stupid things like forcing cloture? Easy. Force the Vice President, in his position in the Senate, to rule on the Constitutionality of it. It dies. It contridicts the rules about a simple majority vote.

Oi. 'Let's give it back to politicians, so Senators are TOTALLY safe from being voted out.'

In effect, Senators would be appointed on a party basis, like members of the Electoral College. A Democratic legislature would (by and large) appoint Democrats; Republicans the other way around. Accountability would be applied to the legislatures.

The only reason I think this could be worthwhile is that it removes the Senators' dependance on election funds from lobbyists. They're still vulnerable to more normal kinds of corruption, but we already have laws in place to fight that kind of thing, and no system would make us immune to that.

As it stands, the Senate is just an identical clone of the House, only with bigger districts and longer election cycles. It removes the main reason to have them at all if they're voted on the same way the House is- they're just the House with the disadvantage of less accountability and none of the advantages of being removed from the modern election cycle.

Well, I have no desire to just remove a chunk of the government, nor hand it right back into the political cronies who are even cheaper to be paid off for Senators.

You want to remove stupid things like forcing cloture? Easy. Force the Vice President, in his position in the Senate, to rule on the Constitutionality of it. It dies. It contridicts the rules about a simple majority vote.

Oi. 'Let's give it back to politicians, so Senators are TOTALLY safe from being voted out.'

I think you've completely misunderstood my proposal or desire there.

He was talking to me.

[SirNitram]

Well, I have no desire to just remove a chunk of the government, nor hand it right back into the political cronies who are even cheaper to be paid off for Senators.

You want to remove stupid things like forcing cloture? Easy. Force the Vice President, in his position in the Senate, to rule on the Constitutionality of it. It dies. It contridicts the rules about a simple majority vote.

Oi. 'Let's give it back to politicians, so Senators are TOTALLY safe from being voted out.'

I think you've completely misunderstood my proposal or desire there.

Actually, I've not addressed you at all. Simon is the one who thinks things will be hunky-dorey if we hand it into the legislatures, trusting blindly they'll vote by party.. But that's not necessarily a wise thing.

[eion]

There are serious problems with repealing the 17th amendment and returning to election of Senators by state legislatures.

The biggest problem in the pre-17th Senate was that often the legislatures would fail to elect Senators for long periods because of political battles. The world today is just as divisive as it was pre-1913, if not more so.

How many of you know who your state senator is? Your delegate? Outside this very political board, how much of the general populace know the same? You don't think the special interests will just shift their money to the state level, and secure independent of the people, the appointment of candidates sympathetic to their cause? Senators will be bought and sold as much, if not more so than they are today.

Repealing the 17th Amendment is not a viable solution.

One solution is to modernize the Senate by removing the abused power of the filibuster, the holds, and other such antiquities of more gentile times.

Another reform that could be brought about is the public funding of national elections. This will enormously reduce the power of lobbying groups.

As both these reforms run contrary to the interests of Senators and their backers, neither is likely without massive grassroots action in the election of independent Senators, or the calling of a Constitutional Convention.

[SirNitram]

Well, I have no desire to just remove a chunk of the government, nor hand it right back into the political cronies who are even cheaper to be paid off for Senators.

You want to remove stupid things like forcing cloture? Easy. Force the Vice President, in his position in the Senate, to rule on the Constitutionality of it. It dies. It contridicts the rules about a simple majority vote.

Oi. 'Let's give it back to politicians, so Senators are TOTALLY safe from being voted out.'

In effect, Senators would be appointed on a party basis, like members of the Electoral College. A Democratic legislature would (by and large) appoint Democrats; Republicans the other way around. Accountability would be applied to the legislatures.

The only reason I think this could be worthwhile is that it removes the Senators' dependance on election funds from lobbyists. They're still vulnerable to more normal kinds of corruption, but we already have laws in place to fight that kind of thing, and no system would make us immune to that.

Gods, the ignorance. They go from lobbyists giving election funds to lobbyists going directly to those appointing. Why are you wanting to make it easier and cheaper for those lobbyists to accomplish their goals?

As it stands, the Senate is just an identical clone of the House, only with bigger districts and longer election cycles. It removes the main reason to have them at all if they're voted on the same way the House is- they're just the House with the disadvantage of less accountability and none of the advantages of being removed from the modern election cycle.

They aren't voted on the same way. Different terms, different allocations of land, etc.

Your entire proposal fixates entirely on beleiving that being appointed by a legislature in a state is safe from the same bullshit as elections(Extremely suspect) and removes the accountability that does exist for Senators(As it does exist; ask those voted out.).

[D.Turtle]

Why go to such complicated measures to try and fix the system?

Simply remove the filibuster and all problems are solved - holds, cloture, minority holding the majority hostage, not being able to fill government posts, etc.

Everything else is just cutting around the edges. Remove the filibuster and you remove the cause of all of those other problems.

The House works well with simple majority votes (there are more than 290 House bills passed that the Senate hasn't gotten around to dealing with).

[ShadowDragon8685]

D.Turtle though, the problem is that the Fillibuster isn't exactly a "normal" operation of legislation.

There is no proviso whereby a disciplined group of minority voters are explicitly allowed to talk until their throats are hoarse, thereby preventing any action on a bill so long as their vocal chords and discipline holds.

They're abusing the basic nessessity of debate by holding endless "debates" within themselves while everyone else is sitting around getting frustrated.


The problem is what happens when you limit debate to avoid the filibuster; you risk the very real possibility of ramming through something without any debate whatsoever.

It would be nice if there was a mechanism in place to force an up-down vote without requiring a stupid 2/3rds vote or whatever is required for cloture. But you might have to just repeal debate to do it.......

[Simon_Jester]

All right, all right, I quit.

Repealing the 17th probably wouldn't help, never mind, don't know why I suggested it in the first place.

[eion]

It would be nice if there was a mechanism in place to force an up-down vote without requiring a stupid 2/3rds vote or whatever is required for cloture. But you might have to just repeal debate to do it.......

The best proposal I've heard is from a couple Senators themselves. On the first day of a filibuster, cloture is 60 (3/5ths of the Senate) as time goes by, that number drops until after 2 weeks you only need 51 Senators to end debate and call for a vote. This preserves the Senate's tradition of unlimited debate but still allows the majority to get things done. If you can win the debate in 2 weeks, awesome, if not you probably never will. 2 weeks is an eternity in modern politics

P.S. why the 2 and 1/3rd Ellipses?

[SirNitram]

Filibuster reform is likely to be an issue.. IF the Dems are in the majority after the elections this year. Enough have been advocating it and pushing that even Reid is admitting it needs looked at.(Reid with a spine? We'll have to see. I think he might just be more scared of his party.)

If they don't, well, that's how it goes. We will then get dozens of investigations into Obama, attempts to repeal healthcare reform, etc.