This is about someone who knew Scott Brown personally–his college room mate and why we don’t need to worry about checks and balances in the Congress–Senate or House.
. It’s important to know about checks and balances-and what the Founding Fathers meant. When they created the Constitution they realized it needed protection. So they created a system of “checks and balances”. A lot of people (for some reason) think that it means that if you have a President from one party you should have a Congress controlled by the other. No!! The way the took care of that problem was by making any party have sixty votes before a bill could move ahead without filibuster. This means that one dumb guy can’t just bring anything to the floor. But if you elect two separate parties to the Congress and the Presidency you just insure that nothing ever gets done. Things can come to a standstill just to keep a party from winning. That’s why the Repbulicans will do anything to get just one or two more seats. They want to stop this President.
Checks and balances are about Congress, Presidency and the Supreme Court. The three insure that no one branch of government can make decisions without the other two being able to stop something absurd. That is why the President has a veto. That is why a challenge can be taken before the Supreme Court. That is why the checks and balances protect us.
I thought of this when reading Daily Kos yesterday. A comment that a young woman made there really struck me and I said “oh no!!”. Her comment:
My uncle roomed with Scott Brown in college (3+ / 0-)
and said the guy was one of the dumbest people he ever met. Couldn’t make any decisions for himself, just did whatever other people told him to, and could barely carry on a sentence.
And my uncle is still voting for Brown… Because he wants “checks & balances”… slams head against wall
by incondite on Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 09:10:16 AM PST
I wrote a blog here today about what people don’t know about Republicans and healthcare and how it can kill them. Please read that blog–it’s important.
http://bluemassgroup.com/u…
The framers (somewhat naively IMO) hoped and assumed that factions as they called them would not develop. The C&B were supposed to be driven by differing lengths of term and differing constituencies. The framers also did not create the filibuster or any other rule requiring more than a majority except for specific 2/3 requirements for veto overrides and treaties.
Suddenly reconciliation will EVIL, secret meetings of the Senate leadership will be completely unacceptable and yes you’ll thank God you have the filibuster.
I am adamantly opposed to the filibuster at least in it’s current form. I don’t have a problem with a supermajority to close debate, but there should be actual debate. There also need to be standard limits on debate and no filibuster on procedurals. Legislation should have an up or down vote with majority prevailing. I’ve sometimes wondered whether there should be a supermajority requirement to confirm judges, but the Constitution should be amended to specifically provide for that.
to post rumors. “My uncle roomed with Scott Brown in college” is not substance; it’s tertiary hearsay. Also, as Christopher points out, your understanding of checks and balances and the filibuster is flawed. I appreciate that you want Brown to lose. I do, too. This kind of post doesn’t help.