Dear Conservative,
As you are probably aware, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently pushed through the 'Nuclear Option' in the Senate, meaning that most political appointees can now be confirmed with just 51 votes (a simple majority).
As Senator Arthur Vandenberg was quoted in 1949: If a majority of the Senate can changes the rules at any time, “there are no rules.”
How did Harry do the nuclear option? It looked simple: Reid had pushed to alter the rules after Republicans obstructed Patricia Millett, nominee to the U.S. Appeals Court for the Washington, D.C., Circuit. The Senate voted 57 to 43 to reconsider a vote on Millett’s nomination; however that was not enough to stop the filibuster.
So then Reid raised a point of order calling for a majority vote to move forward. The Senate parliamentarian ruled Reid's motion out of order. Reid then appealed the ruling, and 52 Democrats supported him.
This little vote TRANSFORMED Senate rules! Now only a simple majority is efficient to end filibusters on nominations.
To put it in perspective, it previously took 60 votes in the Senate to end debate regarding political appointees. Now you've heard the Democrats say that there is no reason why it should have to take 60 votes to pass something in a "Democracy." That would make sense...
But the United States isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic.
That discrepancy actually makes a huge difference. Think about all of the times that Democrats refer to the United States as a "great Democracy." That isn't a slip of the tongue! That is an attempt to redefine how our government operates. Democracies are based on the premise that the majority opinions always prevail. In an actual Democracy, it only takes 50% to agree with something in order for it to pass.
You and I know that our government is a Democratic Republic. While a Democracy has the capacity to devolve into mob rule, Republics ensure that all opinions are fully represented. Our Founding Fathers recognized the inherent dangers in representative government, particularly the existence of factionalism. At the founding, factions were nearly synonymous with the concept of political parties.
When the Founders were debating how to organize the federal government, many took the opportunity to write editorials about the Constitutional Convention in newspapers. The Federal Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were an attempt to make a public appeal for a better functioning federal government.
In Federalist #10, Madison defines factions as a collection of people united and activated by “some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." A political party that’s hell-bent on infringing on our rights… Kind of reminds you of the Democrats, right?
The Founding Fathers' greatest fear was that factions and lobbyists would amass such enormous power that they would be able to violate the rights of the citizenry.
Our liberty and natural rights are NOT up for debate, and especially not up for a simple majority vote!
Tell Congress not to pass a single bill until the Democrats change-back the Senate filibuster rules!
While the Founders were well acquainted with the dangers of executive tyranny (i.e. monarchy or dictatorship), they were equally worried about the "tyranny of the majority." That is the idea that 51% of the people could 'legally' violate the rights of the other 49% simply because they have a majority.
The Senate today would be unrecognizable to the Founders. The 60-vote for quorum (the parliamentary motion to end debate on a measure) was deliberately designed by Alexander Hamilton to ensure that proposed laws and judicial and governmental nominees were relatively moderate and representative of the country at large, not just a powerful faction's interests.
The assumption is that it is incredibly difficult for one political party, faction, or interest group to control 60+ Senate seats and this, theoretically, would ensure that the extremist nominees would be weeded out.
In 2008, we were forced to deal with the seemingly impossible: a radical leftist party controlling the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. This gives the Progressives the opportunity to pass whatever they wanted, without having to compromise with the Republican minority party.
We are now forced to live with the consequences of factionalism and Democrat rule.
Republicans filibustered Obama's nominees not out of a personal hatred, but out of resistance to the very notion that just because the Democrats controlled government for two years doesn't mean they still get to rule unilaterally!
Harry Reid recently remarked that changing the Senate rules was absolutely necessary "before the institution becomes obsolete." Apparently, anything short of a complete progressive control of the federal government is considered a failure...
So we've heard all the sound-bytes that show how utterly hypocritical Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and the Democrats are to support this rule change.
Every single one of them are on record proclaiming in 2005 that to abolish the 60-vote threshold in the Senate would bring about an end to representative government. When in reality, they are trying to bring about an end to Republicanism!
The first order of business for Harry Reid is to ensure that Progressives have complete control of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (known affectionately as the “Death Panel”).
With the rules of the Senate changed, there is no stopping Obama and the Democrats from packing the courts. The Obamacare death panels could very well be filled with Socialist bureaucrats who want to ration your healthcare!
You know that bureaucracy shouldn't decide our healthcare decisions. But if we are to give this power to unelected bureaucrats, how can anyone actually suggest that only one party should be allowed to decide who sits on the panel?
This is an abomination that surely has the Founding Fathers rolling around in their graves. But the framers can't slap any sense into Congress... Only you can!
We must tell Congress that abandoning our Republican government is unacceptable. The Founders worked hard to try to reduce the likelihood that one party would control all branches of government and infringe on the rights of the minority. Unfortunately, all of these precautions were not enough to stop the Democrats from redistributing the country's wealth. Now even though we were able to take back the House, the Democrats long for the 'glory days' of 2008 so that they could push through their liberal agenda without opposition! We must stop them!
In case Congress hasn't been listening, the American people have had enough of one-party governance.
Be the voice of Republicanism! Draw your line in the sand! Not one step further!
We must force Congress to table all Democratic-legislation until Harry Reid restore the Senate rules to how the Founding Fathers intended them to be! We must draw the line and push back against this liberal agenda trying to pack the courts and government offices with unapologetic Socialists!
Tell Congress not to pass a single Democrat-introduced bill or resolution until Harry Reid returns the Senate rules to the way the founders intended it to be!
Sincerely,
Joe Otto
Conservative Daily
No comments yet - make the first one!