Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:37 PM Nov 2013

Alexander Hamilton on why Harry Reid changed the fillibuster

From Federalist Paper #22


“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.… The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.

In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings.

Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.”
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Alexander Hamilton on why Harry Reid changed the fillibuster (Original Post) Scuba Nov 2013 OP
Get thee to the greatest page malaise Nov 2013 #1
I really didn't have too much of a problem with the filibuster until recent years. LuvNewcastle Nov 2013 #2
+1 brer cat Nov 2013 #6
Love him or hate him, Le Taz Hot Nov 2013 #3
I've wondered if he ever would've been President if Aaron Burr hadn't killed him. LuvNewcastle Nov 2013 #4
I think there's a case to be made Le Taz Hot Nov 2013 #5

LuvNewcastle

(16,820 posts)
2. I really didn't have too much of a problem with the filibuster until recent years.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:57 PM
Nov 2013

Leave it to today's Republicans to abuse and pervert everything. There's just no dealing with radicals. It's outrageous the way they've reacted to everything this President does. I've never seen anything even close to this in my lifetime. I don't think anyone has.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
3. Love him or hate him,
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:12 PM
Nov 2013

Alexander Hamilton (who was the proponent for a strong central government) was smart as hell and, unlike many of the Founding Fathers, worked his way up from nothing. Virtually everything he achieved he achieved by his own merit.

LuvNewcastle

(16,820 posts)
4. I've wondered if he ever would've been President if Aaron Burr hadn't killed him.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:18 PM
Nov 2013

Things might be a little different since those formative years were so important and each of the first several Presidents left their mark on the country.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
5. I think there's a case to be made
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:36 PM
Nov 2013

that he certainly could have been a major contender to be the 4th President. He was Washington's Aid-de-camp (sic?) and close confident. His proximity to Washington certainly would have worked in his favor. I think if Hamilton had lived and wanted it, he could have easily been the Federalists' pick instead of Charles Pickney. Madison vs. Hamilton. Now THAT would be a debate!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Alexander Hamilton on why...