Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The real intent of the "Nuclear Option"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 12:01 AM
Original message
The real intent of the "Nuclear Option"
It seems inevitable the the filibuster is gone. Frist wouldn't have brought up the nominees to lose the debate. Bar some miracle, the filibuster is gone. On the surface, this is a means to stack the Supreme Court with judges who will repeal many of the rulings that have protected many of us from tyrrany and injustice. But actually, there is no need to stack the supreme court to gain a much larger prize. There are more immediate and far-reaching implications than simply over-turning Roe V. Wade. It is a means to create a dictatorship.

But is this a reason to panic? No, it is not. It's actually a reason for hope and here's why. The Senate has been drowned in partisan politics for too long. In fact, one of the reasons for the success of the Contract with America, our Senators have been bickering back and forth on partisan issues and ignoring the people's work. In the mean time, the people have suffered from a declining spirit, a declining inquisitiveness in our collective governance and a declining standard of living. Now, it would be easy to blame the Republicans solely for this malaise but they don't bear all the blame. All members of Congress have lost sight of the true principles of our Republic. The Contract for America was so successful because the people were honestly dissatisfied with the actions and more importantly, the corruption that runs rampant in our Government. They came to power because of a promise to reform, to resurrect the fading pride of our country. They promised that if they were given power they would restore honesty and instill conservative values into the laws the Congress enacted. Well, we now know they have fallen short on that promise. They have failed in thier promise but many those who believed in those principles have been either replaced or corrupted in their mad dash for power. They have now been usurped by a group who have learned how to sieze total power in this country.

Today, the Senate has come to the point that they are contemplating restricting their own power in order to turn it over to the Executive Branch. They, as a majority, are voting to remove the advice and consent power of the Senate. They are voting to instill a consent power that only benefits the Executive Branch. Now, this is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It runs deeper than this. The purpose of this maneuver is transfer power into the hands of the Executive Branch in order to make some fundamental changes in our Democracy.

The believed goal of this option is to move the country toward increased Republican ideals. Many of the Republicans who are agreeing with this plan believe they are making a move that will further one of their fundamental concepts of Federalism. They believe in increased states rights and a limiting federal government. In spite of the fact that increased state rights is one of their goals, to achieve this would empower their political competition on the state level and threaten to reduce their individual powers. The moderates believe they are holding true to their principles but they are being conned.

To shift this country back to the Federalist ideals that these hard-liners support requires the Judiciary to restrict the powers of the Legislative Branch and turn that power over to the states. Issues such as "Gay Marriage" and "Right to Life" have forced the moderates to support an agenda that is diametrically opposed to their political future because it appeals to their voting base. By installing Federalists into the Judiciary, they are almost guaranteeing a weakened Legislative Branch. Unfortunately, they assume that the President can't seize the powers of the Legislature denied by the Judiciary. What they are forgetting is the power of Executive Review. The power of Executive Review grants the President power over the agencies that he has appointed. Now he is supposed to follow his Constitutional authority in his Review powers but unfortunately, there is no check or balance on the powers of Executive Review. The President can essentially use this power to direct his different agencies to dramtically alter how funds are allocated, how agencies resources are allocated and how the entire system of government is distributed between the state and federal levels of government.

Now, how does this benefit the President? By installing people in the judiciary who believe in a weak Federal Government, the new laws passed by the House and Senate will either meet the requirements of increased states rights or face rulings of unconstitutionality. The Senate will essentially lose many of the powers that it currently holds. Now, since the President has the power of Executive Review, he can essentially dictate the allocation of certain funds to the individual states without consulting the Senate or even concerning himself with oversight issues. The Senate will be unable or unwilling to counter this because they will fear the retaliation from the Judiciary. The President will now have the power to manipulate the Governors of the states through means of a system of bribes and coercion. The States have become so reliant upon the Federal Government that many programs that keep the state government in power would force the state legislatures to bow to the will of the Governors and the President.

So why shouldn't we panic? Because some of them know this is happening. I have watched and listened very carefully to the statements made by the Senators on the floor from both sides. It appears evident that a few of them realize the true implications of this scenario. I forget who it was who mentioned the Federalist Society but that was a clear indication to me of what was at stake. They know this is the scenario but they also know the people won't understand it fully and will fail to rally to thier cause if it is explained in this manner.

On the surface, they are challenging these judges for a variety of reasons but the only common thread is the ideology of the judges and their belief in the rights of the States over the rights of the Federal government. They realize how easy it is to control Governors and State Legislatures through corporate pressure and funding blackmail. They realize that this is a direct attack on the powers of the Legislative Branch and they realize the abuses of power the President and the Corporations who control this regime can inflict on the country. This is why we keep hearing that this is a fundamental threat to our democracy. The fact that they realize this and are fighting it gives us hope that they will wake up and start fighting the good fight. We are seeing some of that now. The fight over the Filibuster is bringing out the closet Democrats we never hear from and putting fire in their words. It is clear they understand that they are the ones targeted in this attack and they are going to fight it. They may lose this battle but I believe they are finally committed to the war. I also believe this will force them to turn to the people to set things right and this will result in leaders who trust in Democracy and are dedicated in upholding Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. If this is true...
Maryland BETTER get rid of Ehrlich asap... Marylanders got to motivate the republican idiots out there to toss that turd OUT...This petulant little gambling addict bullyboy and his sick theocratic wife will destroy our state freedoms.
The Ehrlich is a bush bot. Get him OUT!

Or Marylanders who stand for the people's rights will suffer.
Our safety net will be decimated.

Ehrlich vetoed the Walmart bill what more proof do you need to see the man is a PIG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. You think he's bad, wait until we "elect" Blackwell here in Ohio
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminbats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. reason to hope..but why have a Senate!?
The Senate exists to serve the interests of the states, the House exists to serve the interests of the voters. If we abolish the filibuster..why limit every state to only two Senators?

The only fair compromise to surrendering the filibuster would be a Constitutional amendment giving states the same number of elected Senators as Representatives. How likely would the Republicans agree to this? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suigeneris Donating Member (471 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. "The Senate exists to serve the interests of the states"
That's an interesting thought that I have never bumped into before. Where did you pick it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suigeneris Donating Member (471 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. On the amendment, 75% of the states would never agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminbats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I hope not, nor would I expect 61 Senators to surrender the filibuster
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. 100% of the state would never agree...
That's not an option. The only option is restoring our Democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. It's not a question of serving...
Edited on Fri May-20-05 02:19 AM by mikelewis
It's a question of Representation...

Once they are in the Legislature, thier responsibility is to serve the country, all the states collectively. This applies to both houses. The idea that they are there to gain for thier states is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Once they got the idea that they could retain power by getting things done for thier respective states, that set the foundation for corruption. It was the balance of corruption that was supposed to be controlled. That balance has shifted way out of control.

There is no comprimise to surrendering the filibuster. The rules state that a cloture vote cannot override a filibuster unless there is a 60/40 vote. How do you comprimise when the other side forces you to comprimise by threatening to break the rules?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminbats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Then why bother with districts or even states?
if they are serving the country, shouldn't they be elected nationally? All I am supporting is an eye for an eye, something neocons would never give up voluntarily!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. The intent of the Senate was for representatives of the individual....
Edited on Fri May-20-05 12:58 PM by mikelewis
states to bing the flavor of each states to the body and work for the common good of the country. The idea that a Senator should work for the good of his state opens him up to a broader and more direct form of corruption. Like the President, Senators are required to represent all the people and not simply thier constituents. An national election for Senators would create more problems and more corruption because the need for campaign finances would be much greater. Realistically, 50 times greater.

Also increasing the number of Senators to reflect the population would not solve the problem, only add to it. The House has representation based upon Population and the Senate has Representation based upon the states participation in the Union. This is precisely why the Senate has more power than the House. The quest for increased representation in the Senate would undermine the effectiveness and dilute the power of the Senate. The House is the body most suseptible to a form of mob rule. The Senate offers equal powers to all representatives and allows for more intense deliberation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. Man, I hope so.
Edited on Fri May-20-05 01:09 PM by CWebster
(Response to the final paragraph)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC