Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrFierce
Removing the fillibuster would seriously damage any minority party's ability to block legislation they find particularly objectionable, allowing for simple majority rule voting. The drawbacks are that a simple majority would be able to seize power by the removal of this check and balance procedure, the founding fathers made rules of checks and balances to prevent just this sort of one party domination of the country, by allowing a minor majority party to use their minor majority to rewrite the rules of procedure at any time to suit their own liking willresult in the consolidation of power only to the ruling party and giving the ruling party the ability to write laws and legislation that could then be used to favor only the ruling party. This is very dangerous territory since one party will always have a one vote majority or better in the senate
|
First of all, we are using the term checks and balances wrong.
The system of checks and balances is not supposed to allow minority senators to get their way and oppose the majority. The system of checks and balances refers to the different branches of government.
The checks and balances system that keeps one branch, ie. the president from "ruling" in a way that is not in the best interest of the people is for the people to vote on and elect senators to represent them.
The senate vote is the check and balance of another branch of government.
What if their were 99 senators from one party and 1 from the opposing party? Should that one senator be allowed to stop the progress of the other 99 senators?
The same thing is happening, just that the numbers are different.
However we want to say it, what is happening is that a minority of Americans are holding the government hostage and not allowing the senators we elected to do their jobs we elected them to do.