Fiddling with the Constitution to limit existing state rights in favor of pure majority rule should be rejected.
Yet, there’s a movement afoot to do just that. It really isn’t all that new. An earlier example of this movement culminated in 1913 with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. The primary changes the 17th Amendment made to the Constitution was to provide for the direct popular election of U.S. senators, a function originally reserved only for the state’s legislatures. As a result, the ability of less-populated states to exercise their co-equal rights was eroded.
Presently, a push is gaining momentum to circumvent the Electoral College, in favor of a national popular vote. Changing how Senate seats are assigned to states is also being advocated. A “census-based” system like the one used for determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives, thereby, giving more populated states more seats and votes in the Senate.
Whatever form and approach, the common goal is to replace the democratic republic form of federal government with pure democracy.
The Supreme Court’s recent reversal of Roe has increased calls for eliminating the Senate filibuster. It’s true the filibuster is only a Senate rule, not law, so its elimination wouldn’t directly challenge, or violate the Constitution. However, it does indirectly affect the co-equality of states guaranteed by the Constitution.
Bruce Ledewitz, a law professor at the Catholic-affiliated Duquesne University, gives what he considers four good reasons in his recent opinion piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
According to Ledewitz, supporters of ending the Senate filibuster believe that the potential benefits from the filibuster’s demise, both for the Senate and for American democracy, outweigh any potential negative consequences.
Proponents view one probable consequence of ending the filibuster to also be a welcomed benefit. Ledewitz enthusiastically anticipates and endorses that it will permit voters to “[give] control of the government to one party, that party could enact anything that the Constitution permits.”
He glibly dismisses this outcome as, “So what? We have a name for that situation. It’s called democracy… Sounds like a good system. We should try it.” Presumably because voters can always vote out the one party out. This naively ignores the reality of how difficult it is to remove one-party rule once in power.
Most Americans would agree that one-party rule does not “sound(s) like” Democracy. Because it is, in fact, tyranny, only going by the name of democracy. And it’s not at all what the Constitution’s framers envisioned for a democratic republic form of government.
A good argument can be made that one reason for the filibuster rule in the Senate is to give a tool to senators in the minority for asserting or forcing senators in the majority to recognize their state’s co-equal rights. The left-leaning non-profit Brennan Center for Justice acknowledges, “that a group of senators representing a small minority of the country can use the filibuster to prevent the passage of bills with broad public support.” Predictably, they view this practice unfavorably. But, in fact, the practice is vital for ensuring equal footing among all states in the union on the Senate floor.
Pixabay
Comments are closed.