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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)
Tue Apr 4, 2017, 01:27 PM Apr 2017

My Email To Schumer On A DEMOCRATIC Nuclear Option [View all]

Last edited Wed Apr 5, 2017, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

McConnell will play dirty on Gorsuch and there's no way around this except if the Dems make a threat that scares the pants off the GOP... a rules change the next time Dems have the majority that weights each Senatorial votes as HALF of a states population. Why? Because Dems seem to represent about 33 million more American's than do the GOP so even if the GOP controls the Senate as representatives of states with a MINORITY of the nation's population... they could no longer have the power to impose or block laws wanted by the majority.

This rule change would seem to be permitted under Art 1 and technically doesn't violate Art 5 which calls merely for equal suffrage... and is silent on whether all votes must weigh the same. After all, the voters have "suffrage" but as the EC victory for Trump proves, those votes vastly differ in weight.

This being said I know this would further affect the functioning of the Senate, but then maybe as perhaps the most antidemocratic legislative body on the planet, one where a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats, the Senate NEEDS some democratic reforms. Are the Dems up to it? What's more important, to see signature Dem programs face an existential threat? Or the rules of an antidemocratic chamber? McConnell has already said for the GOP politics are more important.

68 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Constitution envisioned the House MineralMan Apr 2017 #1
I'm looking for a change though the rules... eniwetok Apr 2017 #6
How would you get a rule change passed, anyway, even if it was a valid one? ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #30
That's not what was intended in the Constitution Amishman Apr 2017 #2
please spare us the 4th grade civics lesson... eniwetok Apr 2017 #7
If the shoe fits... onenote Apr 2017 #43
Got it... you're an apologist for a defective system. eniwetok Apr 2017 #46
If you think being called names by someone like you bothers me onenote Apr 2017 #48
so you won't admit your agenda... eniwetok Apr 2017 #49
So I take it you ALSO oppose the Popular Vote Interstate Compact... eniwetok Apr 2017 #50
I have complicated feelings on it Amishman Apr 2017 #52
There are greater principles than the rule of law eniwetok Apr 2017 #53
18th Century rules compared to 21st Century realities don't jive Fluke a Snooker Apr 2017 #3
sorry... the Senate is antidemocratic BY DESIGN eniwetok Apr 2017 #14
"... and each Senator shall have one vote." sl8 Apr 2017 #4
Yawn... I know damn well what the Constitution says. eniwetok Apr 2017 #9
Art 1 says... eniwetok Apr 2017 #12
Yawn... I know damn well what the Constitution says. sl8 Apr 2017 #13
Because the filibuster rule didn't conflict with the one vote per Senator rule onenote Apr 2017 #24
when I did the calculations eniwetok Apr 2017 #44
Thank you for posting that. ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #31
I don't know sweetapogee Apr 2017 #5
who said anything about the minority changing rules... eniwetok Apr 2017 #10
oh I see now sweetapogee Apr 2017 #19
and your suggestion is??? eniwetok Apr 2017 #23
ouch sweetapogee Apr 2017 #28
We should not assume that every Republican will go along with McConnell to change a 200-year rule. kentuck Apr 2017 #8
the trend with the GOP is to push their agenda hook or crook eniwetok Apr 2017 #11
Which rule? sl8 Apr 2017 #16
Agreed, kentuck, some Senators like McCain might not go along with McConnell on this. ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #32
Looks like you might be right about McCain. ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #68
Explain how you get this rule implemented. brooklynite Apr 2017 #15
how is any Senate rule changed? eniwetok Apr 2017 #17
So you expect a Republican Majority to change the Senate rules to benefit the Democrats? brooklynite Apr 2017 #18
apparently sweetapogee Apr 2017 #20
since you clearly don't understand... eniwetok Apr 2017 #22
How is that leverage? If you assume the Democrats are going to regain control onenote Apr 2017 #25
you realize you're admitting a defect in the Senate, right? eniwetok Apr 2017 #38
No, I'm just pointing out a defect in your "logic" onenote Apr 2017 #42
When you find it, please let me know. eniwetok Apr 2017 #45
why bother. you're incapable of recognizing it when it's right in front of you onenote Apr 2017 #47
so you have no answer... eniwetok Apr 2017 #51
I think I'm wasting my time but sweetapogee Apr 2017 #29
back again? eniwetok Apr 2017 #39
you must have sweetapogee Apr 2017 #40
THANKS for proving that I saw right through you! eniwetok Apr 2017 #41
where did I say this? eniwetok Apr 2017 #21
It's success depends on several things onenote Apr 2017 #26
if the Constitution says.... eniwetok Apr 2017 #37
eniwetok, Are you a human being or a bot? ColemanMaskell Apr 2017 #33
If you have something on the topic to say... please do. eniwetok Apr 2017 #34
It's clear the Senate was envisioned as a kind of House of Lords... yallerdawg Apr 2017 #27
House Of Lords.... from the secret minutes of the Constitutional Convention eniwetok Apr 2017 #35
our failing experiment in democracy eniwetok Apr 2017 #36
How would they make this rule change? drm604 Apr 2017 #54
of course it would take a majority eniwetok Apr 2017 #55
The constitution is pretty clear about amendments jmg257 Apr 2017 #56
YOU say this needs an amendment... eniwetok Apr 2017 #59
Yes the Constitution is QUITE clear. jmg257 Apr 2017 #61
you're not dealing with the term SUFFRAGE eniwetok Apr 2017 #62
Senators represent the States...each get 1 vote. jmg257 Apr 2017 #63
there's no point of this discussion... eniwetok Apr 2017 #65
Sorry u r right...was getting on a plane - will go back jmg257 Apr 2017 #66
here are my key concerns.... eniwetok Apr 2017 #67
This isn't a "rule change". Its a Constitution change. jmg257 Apr 2017 #57
that's not an argument... that's merely a claim eniwetok Apr 2017 #58
You are right , not an argument / it's a fact. jmg257 Apr 2017 #60
again... you're back to making claims not arguments. eniwetok Apr 2017 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»My Email To Schumer On A ...