![]() |
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
February 13, 2010
HISTORY/POLITICS: Madison Was Wise: Lessons From Federalist No. 62
I wrote at some length earlier this week on the crucial role of the legislative filibuster in preventing transitory legislative majorities from saddling the nation with permanent legislation of great complexity. As with so many questions of great significance, the Founding Fathers had wise and useful foresight to offer on the dangers of frequent and complex changes in federal law. Let's go to the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 62, his explanation of the virtues of the Senate: The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions. The Senate is designed to ensure that no great and complex changes can come to the law, but by operation of the great majority of the people in the several states. The Framers designed it that way. We should be rightly suspicious of those who always want to change the rules when they cannot get their way. Comments
Don't get me started. Eh, too late. We were also supposed to have Senators who were elected by the States, not the people. That was another check on the whimsy of the House. How'd that work out? See: Chuck Schumer. The Founders were concerned the House would be influenced by special interests or factions, so they gave the President the veto. You need only look at Bush signing CFR to know how that worked out. No matter whether you credit special interests or public whimsy for that insult to the BoR, no way that should have passed muster in the Senate or the Oval Office. The older I get, the more it looks to me like the Founders had a good handle on the kind of pressures the branches would face. Where we've gone wrong, you can usually look to changes we made and the unintended consequences of those. When I was younger I thought the electoral college was an archaic joke. But I still wouldn't risk changing it for anything. I am just not as smart as those guys, and anybody who telss you they know better just doesn't have history on their side. Posted by: spongeworthy at February 14, 2010 9:50 AMI like the electoral college as well - wouldn't change it if I could. It sounds bad, but it's there for a reason. Back to your post, the Economist said the same thing about the Senate and filibuster: "America’s political structure was designed to make legislation at the federal level difficult, not easy. Its founders believed that a country the size of America is best governed locally, not nationally. True to this picture, several states have pushed forward with health-care reform. The Senate, much ridiculed for antique practices like the filibuster and the cloture vote, was expressly designed as a “cooling” chamber, where bills might indeed die unless they commanded broad support." The article also has some suggestions: "So the basic system works; but that is no excuse for ignoring areas where it could be reformed. In the House the main outrage is gerrymandering. Tortuously shaped “safe” Republican and Democratic seats mean that the real battles are fought among party activists for their party’s nomination. This leads candidates to pander to extremes, and lessens the chances of bipartisan co-operation. An independent commission, already in existence in some states, would take out much of the sting. In the Senate the filibuster is used too often, in part because it is too easy. Senators who want to talk out a bill ought to be obliged to do just that, not rely on a simple procedural vote: voters could then see exactly who was obstructing what." economistDOTcom/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15545983&source=hptextfeature I don't agree with the filibuster reform suggestion; I'd leave it alone. The gerrymandering is worth solving, but that's easier said than done, and I'm not entirely convinced it's the root cause of the problem. Posted by: MVH at February 18, 2010 11:31 AM
|