U.S. Senate neglects a critical responsibility
In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the governor of Virginia, Edmund Randolph, spoke these prophetic words about the need for a firm Senate:
"The object of the second branch is to control the democratic branch of the national legislature. If it be not a firm body, the other branch being more numerous and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it. ... A firmness and independence may be more necessary also in this branch, as it ought to guard the Constitution against encroachments of the executive, who will be apt to form combinations with the demagogues of the popular branch."
Today, the danger lies in a Senate that has forgotten its responsibility to guard the nation against the executive's partnership with the popular passions of the House. The Senate's role is to be a keel in the boat of state.
Svea Sauer
Greensboro
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I have to agree. Our own senators are a perfect example of senators who have forgotten their job is to advise on nominees. They are republicans first and Americans far down the line of priorities. They want a nation of serfs. They want to shortchange the fighting men in time of war. They feel no responsibility to injured vets. Their economic ideas are infantile. They gladly join in Bush's attempt to turn our lakes, rivers, and air into cesspools of poisons and infectious agents. It is as if they believe there will never be another generation of Americans who must contend with the fruits of their corruption and incompetence.
Posted on June 5, 2005 11:29 AM
While I cannot agree more, the senate may be more aptly described as a deliberative body. Yes, their history as a body is more placid than in the house, but they are as subject to the whims of the President, majority party's decrees, and actions based upon personal political gain as their counterparts in the House. The decorum in the House tends to be much less friendly, more rhetorical, and ultimately, more divisive.
Posted on June 5, 2005 12:50 PM
Svea,
And your point is........?
Posted on June 6, 2005 2:23 PM