but unfortunately, those on the left place no value in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers nor the Constitution lest it serve their cause.

Ironic that Obama focuses on the process as being the issue, not the ObamaCare mess itself. I guess the process put forth by our founding fathers is an issue when you want to run counter to the country’s founding.

“The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood”

Brilliant. And he has been proven true.

Maybe we can do better when we write the NEXT Constitution after the coming revolution.

Nowhere did Madison support the idea that a supermajority would be required to pass legislation or to confirm a presidential nominee.

In fact, when the Constitutional Convention discussed whether a simple majority should constitute a quorum or if a supermajority should be required, the Constitutional Convention decided that the minority should not be allowed to obstruct the majority.

The Constitution also gives the Vice President the power to cast a tie braking vote.

If the framers of the Constitution had supported the idea that 60 percent of the Senate must accept and end to debate on a legislative proposal or a presidential nominee, they probably would have put it in the Constitution.

In reality, the current Senate Rule 22, which requires three fifths of all Senators chosen and sworn to end debate on ordinary Senate business, has only been in effect since 1975.

And how did the 1975 Senate change Senate Rule 22 from a two-thirds requirement to a three-fifths requirement?

A majority of Senators threatened to use the Constitutional Option.

Remember when the Democrats filibustered every Bush judicial nominee under President Bush?

How did Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Rick Santorum and Vice President Dick Cheney respond to the Democrats’ filibustering judicial nominees?

They threatened to use the Constitutional Option.

Here is what Senator Jon Kyl said in May 2005 during the controversy over the Democrats’ judicial filibusters and the GOP threat to use the Constitutional Option:

Fortunately, the Senate is not powerless to prevent a minority from running roughshod over its traditions. It has the power – and the obligation – to govern itself. As I will demonstrate today, that power to govern itself easily extends to that device that has come to be known as the “constitutional option.”

Mr. President, the Constitution is clear about the scope of the Senate’s power to govern itself. Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution states that “Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” The Supreme Court has rarely interpreted this clause, but one case is important for our purposes, that of United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). That 1892 case dealt with the power of the majority in the House of Representatives to make rules, and contains two holdings that bear on our situation today.

First, the Supreme Court held that the powers delegated to the House or Senate through Article I, section 5, clause 2 are powers held by a simple majority of the quorum. The Constitution states that a majority of members constitutes a quorum, and the Supreme Court, therefore, held that “when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business.” 144 U.S. at 5. The Supreme Court continued, “All that the Constitution requires is the presence of a majority.” 144 U.S. at 6. Thus, a majority is all the Constitution requires to make rules, to set precedents, and to operate no a day-to-day basis. The Supreme Court made this clear.

Second, the Supreme Court held that the “power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house.” 144 U.S. at 5. By “house,” the Court means the House of Representatives or the Senate. The import of this statement is crucial for present purposes. The power of the majority of Senators to define Senate procedures is one that exists at all times – whether at the beginning, middle, or end of Congress.

So, Mr. President, the constitutional background is simple and uncomplicated. We can govern ourselves. We can do it by majority vote. And we can do it at any time.

So, James Madison did not endorse the filibuster, nor did he oppose the filibuster. The filibuster didn’t exist until Aaron Burr, Vice President under President Thomas Jefferson, the nation’s third president, deleted a Senate Rule called “the previous question” from the Senate rules. This left the Senate with no concrete rule under which to end debate.

But in 1917 the Senate used the Constitutional Option to put in place a Senate Rule that would allow debate to be ended by a 2/3 rds vote of the Senate.

This was because 11 isolationist US Senators were able to use the filibuster to prevent a vote on the Armed Ship Bill.

It seems like common sense that James Madison would have supported the use of the Constitutional Option in 1917 and he very well might have supported Senators Frist, McConnell, Kyl and Santorum in 2005 in their threat to use the Constitutional Option too.

Thanks for linking to the paper. Madison grasp so much that is part of human nature. You have to admit, they understood human failings and did their best to build a Republic designed to be insulated from them. However, even the best defense can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers and this is what is happening to us.

There are far too many people who believe the Constitution is a living document, that the government is the solution, and that they should get stuff for free.

It’s like watching a zombie movie with an unending supply of living dead desiring to eat what flesh is left. Kind of spooky.

Please correct before I gouge my eyes out to avoid seeing that typo.

As some of you know and hopefully been following, I’ve been reading and blogging about Mao and the Great Cultural Revolution. In my latest post I’m covering the defrosting of China as Mao begins to lose control. What grabbed me the most was how quickly the Chinese, victims of thousands of years of a closed society, punished by a mad revolutionary, afraid of even daring to think or challenge, absolutely exploded towards the door of free will and free thought. It re-enforces my belief that free will is a gift from God that cannot be denied. Here is my post I think it has a place here along with the discussion of the founding of our nation. Why? Because the people who founded this great nation also recognized the God given right to live free, think free, and have free will to chose.

As you read, ask yourself if any of this sounds familiar.

—

Another story about Mao and his last betrayals. The death of Lin Biao
Posted February 14th, 2010 by admin

Near the end of Mao’s control of China several things began to occur. First, many of the leaders who had gained power with him and survived the many purges the Cultural Revolution created began to die off. Second, Mao began to lose control of the message. As much as people felt he was a deity in many respects, his actions and the resulting chaos of the Revolution left many doubting his omnipotence. One of those who realized Mao was losing it was his trusted associate Lin Biao. For a time, for a long time Biao was considered a favorite to replace Mao. However, as many tyrants do, Mao changed his mind. Biao sensed he was in trouble, even though he followed every order, every thought, every desire of his Chairman. Lin’s son also lost faith in the Chairman and may have plotted to assassinate Mao. In any event, a once trusted associate and his family attempted to flee China to the USSR. Their plane was either shot down or crashed, killing them all.

The book indicates that Mao never recovered from the loss of his friend and the doubt it created in the minds of the people. Here is an example of the doubt.

“Today he uses this force to attack that force; tomorrow he uses that force to attack this force. Today he uses sweet words and honeyed talk to those whom he entices, and tomorrow he puts them to death for some fabricated crimes. Those who are his guests today will be his prisoners tomorrow.”

Well, that about summed up the last six years of chaotic, murderous history of Mao’s China. More and more public displays of revolt began to surface. Small groups of citizens began to meet, to challenge, to question. Some were open to the point of being identified and arrested and executed, but others managed to disseminate new ideas challenging Mao as the final word on all things.

More and more of the old established members either died or became so ill they could no longer hold power. Mao became a recluse. (Which is ironic. His favored USSR leader, Stalin, also became a recluse and in the end died in his own waste, a victim of a stroke if I remember correctly.)

At this point in the history of China a strange thing occurred. People began to realize they had been screwed and free thought (something almost unheard of in China) began to surface as people rewrote the concept of Communism in China. You have to remember as America courted China, the influence of the West began to creep into the conversations of everyday citizens. Even some leaders challenged the closed nature of China and allowed books that were once forbidden to be printed and read. Simple books we take for granted exploded in the minds of students and others in China. Books like Count of Monte Cristo and Catcher in the Rye. Once the door was opened it could never be closed again. After forty years of a closed society, dominated by a mad revolutionary, the first chance the people had they ran for freedom.

This is a lesson we should always, ALWAYS remember. People long to be free, in spirit, in thought, in life. It is the God in us. It is what separates us from animals. It is what powers our souls.

Obama can command. Congress can dictate. The courts can order. But WE are free willed people who only give them power over us by choice. And it is our choice to take that power back.

…and add this in the RedState University category so that others can more easily search it out.
VB

We withdrew the 17th amendment. That way the states would be more than just a fifth wheel on the wagon.

The founders were well aware of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ … “Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.” – John Adams

Your reading of No. 62 is incorrect, out of context of the rest, and requires the absolute vaguest reading possible for it to fit your position. Please note Madison’s focus on the constant changes in the law from election to election, not a concern with new legislation. Second, if you look at the Constitution that you are attempting to construe, it’s pretty upfront about who gets to legislate (Art. I Sec. 1 being at the beginning and all).

Second, I suspect that your concerns with the length and complexity of the legislation are less than principled. What if a ten page bill were considered? One hundred pages? I can hear the screams of opponents had that been the case, excoriating the House for its laziness and failure to adequately consider it. The fact is that a complex system that services over 250 million people isn’t the same as fighting piracy or banning the interstate transportation of some illicit substance.

I respect your opposition to the healthcare reform currently being considered. I disagree, but that’s the nature of policy making. However, to come up with such a shamefully pseudo-originalist argument based upon Madison’s concern with constantly fluctuating laws is pretty minor league. The Constitution does not delineate every major regulatory or legal situation, nor is it required to be amended as you suggest. There is a legislative power, it is the power most considered by the Framers, and its use in interstate commerce is legitimate. Your argument is another example of tyranny by a legislative minority. Elections have repercussions. Or is that only when Scott Brown wins?

Despite Madison’s desire to have the Senate protect against ill-considered changes in government, he still was against supermajority rule. He states that quite clearly in his defense of a mere majority quorum in Federalist #58 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa58.htm):

“It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum[...] That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences. Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions[...]” (emphasis mine)