Part of the job of every member of congress

[mmonk]

is to hold safe from usurpation the power expressively given to it by the constitution. Another part of the job expressively given to it is to hold safe and from harm the rights granted to the people from any attempted violation of the rights expressively given to them as they are representatives of the people. Elections are not and have never intended to be the remedy for violations of those rights. Therefore, I'm still pondering a writ of mandamus. May as well test it. Nothing is lost by trying.

[KharmaTrain]

1. For Your Consideration...

Just dropping this ditty I heard back in the Clinton inquisition days...just for discussion sake...and this revolves around the constitutional changes of the Senate. The argument was that the framers had designed the Senate not to represent the people, but the States...like the House of Lord. While the Congress would be directly elected...the only directly elected federal position written into the Constitution...the Senate was to be selected by the states with no requirement as to how those Senators are selected. For the first 100 plus years, most states would appoint Senators based on state politics and that this was to balance the "people power" in the Senate. Supposedly the Constitution is now out of whack as the Senate is now elected and thus the role of the Senate has been "compromised" as "jurors" and "legislators" due to their need to "pander" to voters. I found it an interesting debate at the time and still do.

The bottom line is the Constitution was written vaguely...for a reason. The Federalist papers do go on to attempt to put meat on the bones, but its not a binding document and is kinda like the bible...you can find a quotation or section to fit almost any argument.

When the concept of "the people" is discussed...just who are those people. The little peons like us that were only supposed to be directly represented by only by the House that was to be kept in balance by the Senate who in turn was also to keep the Executive in check. Recently, I've heard Repugnicans discuss how the ammendment that allowed Senators to be directly elected to be overturned. Ya wonder why.

Cheers...

[mmonk]

2. True. Of course that is why impeachment

and legislation gets it's start in the House, not the Senate.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Yes...Also How The Senate Is A Firewall

While the founders gave rights to "the people", they didn't necessarily trust them...thus why the Senator and President were not elected directly and we still have the Electoral College. While they feared the rule of a tyrant, they also didn't trust "popular" rebellion either. And the Senate...if you look at its 19th Century history...was a battleground of states rights and thus the rules of cloiture was developed to get a "working consensus" when votes got too close. In essence, nobody trusts anyone here.

Personally, I think we're better off having an elected Senate...and I'm strongly in favor of replacing the electoral college with a system where college "votes" would be based on the district...and only the two senate votes going to "winner take all"...meaning if Kerry had won your Congressional district, he would have gotten the electoral vote for that district...but if he lost the popular vote statewide, the two Senate votes would have gone to boooshie (ugh...but I had to say it).

Impeachment is already starting in the House...Gonzo just made their job easier with his antics in the Senate...but when Miers refused to show, we crossed the Rubicon. Also, I suggest when you see polls with 60% or more in favor of impeaching Gonzo, chenney or boooshie, the momentum will shift.

[mmonk]

5. That momentum is what I'm watching closely.

The executive branch is definitely hanging itself with every move. This is very much a determined effort to shift the balance of power in contravention of the checks on power.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Caged Ferral Animals

The more we push, the more obstinate and irrational they get. But there is a tipping point, and I agree with you that we're getting very close to that time. Josh Marshall points out to how this regime is attempting to put use precedence as protecting its unitary autocracy. Thus they're not just stalling out the clock here on avoiding investigations and accountability, but hoping to solidify their politization of the Judiciary. My hopes is that we caught them before rather than after its too late.

[mmonk]

3. The senate, as I see it,

is a check on direct democracy where direct democracy could conflict with rights that safeguard from tyranny of the majority.