Right on, No one is Speaking for Good old Americans. Elections have Consequences,but when Republicans get Elected that Doesnt apply,they are Clueless,we are all screwed
they are Clueless,
I, for one, do not believe they are clueless. IMHO it has been a bloodless coup by the RAT party from within our own shores without a shot being fired.
When the GOP is in charge, we are constantly reminded of the "balance of power" and how the minority must be heard.
When the RAT party of food stamps is in power, we are constantly lectured about how the GOP must compromise with the minority.
Remember this?
On Tuesday, March 15, Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, flanked by over three dozen Democratic Senators, declared war on the plan of the Republican leadership in the White House and the Senate to destroy the right of extended debate ("filibuster") in the United States Senate—a right unique to the Senate, and one which is an essential component of the
system of checks and balances embodied in the United States Constitution.
This article appears in the March 25, 2005 issue of
Executive Intelligence Review.
Maybe this is more accurate.
Myth: The filibuster is necessary to maintain the “checks and balances” of our democratic system. Truth: “Checks and balances” refer to the separation-of-powers doctrine between government branches (executive, legislative and judicial), not the Senate’s balance of power between Democrats and Republicans. In this case, the president nominates judges, and the balance on that prerogative is the Senate’s “advice and consent” by an up-or-down, majority vote. The president’s ability to appoint new judges (executive branch “check”) and impeachment (legislative branch “check”) balances the government’s judicial branch. Democrats want to abuse a Senate procedural rule8 to, in effect, rewrite the Constitution’s “advice and consent” clause, requiring a supermajority (three-fifths vote) to approve nominees. The Constitution defines where a supermajority vote is required (treaties, veto overrides, etc.). No such requirement is required for “advice and consent.” The Senate’s authority to write its own procedural rules cannot conflict with the Constitution’s substantive requirements. If the filibuster were vital to the concept of “checks and balances,” then the House of Representatives also would have a three-fifths-vote cloture rule, which it does not. A simple majority can end debate and bring a matter to a vote in the House of Representatives.