By Robert S. Siegel
My initial thought was that Arlen Specter’ switch to the Democrats was good for our Constitution and therefore our nation. Complete irrelevancy, I reasoned, would force Republicans to decide on their future. Would the party embrace fiscal responsibility and limited government or continue on as big spending vote buyers with a government enforced social agenda?
My editor, Michael Everett, made me see the light, so to speak. That’s why I have a good editor.
The real concern for Republicans should be a concern for all Americans. That the Republicans had the filibuster option meant that they could force debate on major issues. The filibuster is a tool that can delay actions and in that delay, draw the media and the public’s attention. Attention is important because our nation is founded on the premise of vigorous and informed debate. When voters pay attention to issues the debate follows.
MYODB Principle number 4 states that our Constitution establishes a wall between the rule of law and popular will. These are times to reinforce that wall through voter vigilance. Principle 5 reminds us that we need added vigilance to retain separation of powers when our party has the power, because power will change hands again. This becomes increasingly important when Congress is so heavily weighted in favor of the Executive branch.
There is no way to know for certain how Congress will react to the shift in power that occurred with Specter’s shift in parties. This blog hopes that our Legislative branch will aspire to new heights of openness and in efforts to inform the public of its actions in a non-partisan way.
More important however, this blog hopes voters of both parties will become extra vigilant in monitoring Congress and insisting legislators encourage full review of all of their actions. We The People must now act in place of two party check and balance that should exist in Congress.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Callin’ B.S. on ya’ on this one. Name more than one occurrence in recent past where filibuster was used to foster debate. It’s the anti-debate mechanism – used to block any vote and outlast the will of the opposing party/side/debate. Heck, wasn’t it Metzenbaum who read from a book or some such nonsense?
Our two party system is flawed no doubt, but don’t hold the filibuster (or lack thereof) as the paragon of a just and unbiased forum for debate. The only thing it forces is boredom.
Scott
- unabashed West Sider
Scott!
Glad to see you’re out there!
That you are familiar with Senator Metzenbaum (D. Ohio – deceased) and his reading a book in a filibuster tells me that his effort did draw the public’s attention; the Senator’s last term ended in 1995 and you’re still aware.
There is no question in my mind that the filibuster is first and foremost a tool of obstruction that has been ill used. That does not change my call for added vigilance by voters.
The loss of the filibuster is the loss of an important tool that could be used to draw attention and engage debate. It could also be used to obstruct worthy legislation. That said, added vigilance will either shut down the ill used filibuster or hurt the Republicans further. Either way, added vigilance, which is what I call for, can only be good. Our nation is based on informed debate. “Informed” is always key.
Great to have you join the conversation. Please keep reading and commenting.