The U.S. government incorporates a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are essentially independent, acting as a check on each other. Even within a given branch, there are checks.
The Senate has rules that give the minority party significant power even when badly outnumbered by the majority. The filibuster rule is one of these controls, whereby debate on an issue can only be stopped with 60 votes or more.
Now, the conservative majority wants to change the rule to stop debate with a simple 51-vote plurality. The reason given is that Senate Democrats are blocking a few of the president's judicial nominees by filibustering. Republicans claim the Democrats are against the faith of these nominees. Democrats say they are just against their radical right-wing agenda.
Whatever the case, eliminating this check against absolute power by one party is a bad idea. It is a bad idea no matter which party is in control. To paraphrase the old saw, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Checks and balances make democracy messy, but democracy without them becomes dictatorship of the majority.
Jack Jezorek
Greensboro
Comments (5)
Boy if this isn't an example of the failure of the educational system in our state and country.
Posted by Mac | May 3, 2005 9:59 AM
You said it Mac. Like the writer said, checks and balances were incorporated "to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful". Notice the word BRANCH. There was nothing mentioned regarding PARTY. Another example or trying to rewrite history.
Posted by another bigmouth | May 3, 2005 10:25 AM
In 1994, defending a Republican judicial filibuster, Senator Hatch explained that the filibuster is “one of the few tools the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.”
What has changed since 1994?
Posted by D Ray | May 3, 2005 4:34 PM
I think you are not justified in your criticism. Jack understands the difference between branch and party ... he draws the parallel.
He is saying that checks and balances within the legislature are as good an idea as among branches.
Now in your criticism, you never have the courage to present an opinion, much less defend it. So what do you say, is it a good idea to nuke the filibuster? Remember that your party may not always be in power!
Posted by Lon | May 3, 2005 6:59 PM
I seem to remember when the Democrats called for an end to filibusters because it made it too tough for them to pull the wool over our eyes.
Posted by John | May 3, 2005 10:03 PM