General Discussion

MineralMan

(151,359 posts)

1. The Constitution envisioned the House

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 01:33 PM

Apr 2017

as the People's legislative body and the Senate as the State's body of Congress. That was deliberate. Without a change in the Constitution, there's really not too much to be done about that division of legislative power, I think.

And with Democrats in the minority right now in Congress, a Republican President and soon, probably, a conservative SCOTUS, there isn't really any "Nuclear Option" available to the Democrats in Congress.

We're going to have to win back control of Congress and elect a Democrat as President. That's the bottom line, really. We should start working on that soonest.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

My Email To Schumer On A DEMOCRATIC Nuclear Option [View all] eniwetok Apr 2017 OP

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