We are no longer a country of Majority Rule

[Winterblues]

By the Senate's out dated special rules American will no longer ever be a country of Majority rule unless some Major changes take place. Republicans have shown they have zero interest in Governing and have made it a point to keep any government from functioning from this point on. Filibusters were OK way back when, when they were very rare and used only in exceptional circumstances. Now there is a Permanent Filibuster in effect which will require super Majorities for any and all legislation. As we saw with Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and any other Senator with zero scruples any and all legislation will be held hostage until they are given a pay-off of pretty much whatever they choose. This is not the way our Government was supposed to run, or should I say not able to run. This is unacceptable and we the people need to demand that some changes be made. Or else just be content with a dysfunctional Government forever on..

[WeDidIt]

1. 51 votes in the Senate can represent less than 20% of the nation's population

I fully support the filibuster for that reason.

I would rather require a 3/5 majority of the members of the Senate to advance legislation instead of accepting a 1/5 minority of the populace dictating legislation.

[rucky]

12. And 41 votes is even less...

yet they can hold up progress for the other 59. It's all relative.

[WeDidIt]

14. I'd rather allow a minority to hold up legislation

than let an even smaller minority dictate legislation at will.

[unblock]

16. the senate was designed to represent the states, not the people.

it is equal representation and (aside from filibustering rules and certain supermajority requirements), a simple-majority institution.

simple majority of the states' representatives, that is, again, not of the people.

the house of representatives is "the people's house", and rather more representative of the people, at least when it's not gerrymandered all to hell and setting aside a few diebold votes.


even still, the representatives are majorities within districts; senators majorities within states. it's possible for some group of voters to be 49% of the entire population but if sufficiently evenly spread out, they could have zero representation in congress.

[CBGLuthier]

2. we never have been

And thank god for that.

Majority is quite often wrong and we need protection from them.

[KansDem]

4. Well, I, for one, am happy we turned that protection over to the corporations...

Without their wisdom and guidance who knows what kind of condition we'd be in now!

:sarcasm:

[stopbush]

3. We are a country with a representational government that is elected by a majority.

Nothing has changed since the Constitution took effect. In fact, much of what was established by the Constitution - like the Electoral College - was put in place to safeguard against the common majority having the power to tell the vested aristocracy what to do.

We have, in fact, never been a country of majority rule, at least in the purest and direct sense of the word.

[KansDem]

7. I've never looked at it that way!

I remember learning about "the tyranny of the majority" in school and how I thought it was to protect the minority against unreasonable demands. It never occurred to me it was to protect the oligarchy!

[NoNothing]

8. Not quite right

When the Constitution took effect, senators were not even elected at all, they were appointed by state legislatures. That didn't change until the 17th Amendment.

Unfortunately, I'm not certain that it has on balance been a positive change. One thing you could say about state legislatures, is that they were not likely to be as gullible as the voting public on political matters. Senators couldn't roll them so easily.

[stopbush]

10. Of course, you're right. I forgot about that one.

So we're actually less beholden to the powers-that-be than we were before the 17th amendment.

[TexasProgresive]

13. One thing has changed

The SCOTUS declaring personhood for corporations. Deleting that decision would be really nice.

[NoNothing]

15. What decision would that be?

I don't believe SCOTUS ever really declared such a thing.

[TexasProgresive]

20. It was in 1886 link will go to the text of the decision.

This is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.
The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html#118US394

[babylonsister]

5. I knew that when two elections were stolen. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

6. Senate isn't the only game, but...

President - usually majority rule except in case of Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000).
Congress - Always, except when diebold counts the vote
Senate - Always, except when diebold counts the vote

The Senates arcane rules of order having noting to do with majority rule. The majority often determines who gets elected, but no way do 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen, and 1 President equal majority rule. But that is because we are a representational Democratic Republic. Majority's are allowed to elect peole, but majority does not rule.

[izquierdista]

9. We do have majority rule

Whoever has the majority of the money makes the rules.

[Better Today]

11. And I for one am perfectly thankful that majority doesn't rule, can

you imagine the fates of atheists, pro-choicers, GLBTs, and so many more minorities.

sorry, but majority rule bitching is only brought forward when one is part of the majority. It's a truly scary idea for most of us that live daily in some minority group or another.

[WVRICK13]

17. When Were We A Country of Majority Rule?

History doesn't prove the theory. We have been lied to from the beginning and things are only getting worse.

[timeforpeace]

18. "Filibusters were OK way back when" Yeah, way back when we were in the minority, right?

[meow2u3]

19. Our country has a different kind of majority rule

The majority of dollars rules.

[alarimer]

21. Remember when the Republicans tried to end the filibuster?

You'll change your tune if (more likely when) they become the majority again. I would make one change to the filibuster rules and I would require that the person doing the filibuster be on the floor, like it used to be.

Why should big states get to dominate everything (NY, CA) even if they do happen to be blue? Which is what would happen if you changed the rules for Senate representation.

[1]

22. i don't know, bud. majority rule is not what you think it is...

minorities, given the dictionary definition, are not a majority in this country.

glbts are not a majority in this country.

all sorts of people are not a majority in this country.

do you really want the "majority" to make the decisions and "rule?"


i don't.