Comments on: Tyranny Inherent in the System

By: charles austin

charles austin — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:09:16 +0000

As we used to say, "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:01:47 +0000

AS I re-read this post and the comments I can't help but feel that the present situation is being misrepresented somewhat. What the last seven years has demonstrated is not that a third of the senate can hold the country hostage (the president is a bit of a red herring in that discussion). The last seven years demonstrates that under our system power politics, i.e. a slim majority, whether Republican or Democratic, is unable to shove its program through. It must make concessions of some sort to the “other side”. Sounds like a good thing rather than a bad one to me.

By: one bit shy

one bit shy — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:56:03 +0000

I think the power of appropriations is a pretty big additional check. You don't need 67 Senate votes not to fund something.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:43:16 +0000

It says something about the Founders that this possibility apparently did not occur to them.

Oh, but it did. But, remember, neither the filibuster nor judicial review were part of the system as codified. And the president didn't emerge as the powerful figure he is today until very late in the process -- arguably, not until FDR.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:50:51 +0000

Another reason why no one would enact the Constitution if it were proposed from scratch today. It says something about the Founders that this possibility apparently did not occur to them.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:21:44 +0000

admitting flyspeck islands as states to expand the Senate

By today's standards all of the original thirteen states would be “flyspeck islands” (at least as regards population). More senators by dividing some of the present states e.g. California, New York, Texas, would IMO be a good thing albeit sadly politically impossible.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:53:26 +0000

If 3/4 of the states agree ...

I'm presuming that the 34 Senators in question are something other than rogue actors and are therefore taking the politics of their state into consideration.

By: Maniakes

Maniakes — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:48:15 +0000

There are checks-of-last-resort. If 3/4 of the states agree, they can amend the constitution by convention (technically, Congress calls the convention upon the request of 2/3 of the states, and 3/4 of the states must ratify what comes out of the convention, but Congress must call the convention (Hamilton considered Congress's role here to be a formality), and I'd expect it to only require a simple majority to do so).

Can the President veto adding a state to the union, or would it be possible for a congressional majority to break a cabal of 34 Senators by packing the Senate (admitting flyspeck islands as states to expand the Senate)?