trpmb6 wrote:When you look at all the parliamentarian rules and powers of the senate it is quite clear it was never meant to be a directly elected body. Many may say the constitution is antiquated. But it is only 230 years old. The Roman Republic lasted just over 500 years, when the mob finally got it's way in their darling Caesar. The empire lasted another 1500 years, though realistically it was only a "great" empire for maybe half of that.
Our framers were not stupid. They knew the fallacies of the Roman senate during the Republic. They knew what led to an eventual dictatorship and imperial rule. That's the beauty of hindsight. I'm not saying the Constitution is perfect. But the framework of it is what has allowed the US to become such a strong country. We significantly altered that framework by amending the Constitution and changing how the Senate is structured. How that plays out in the next few hundred years is anyone's guess. Some day in the far future they may look back and point to that amendment as the turning point though. Sure, we have thrived since the change. But, imo, we've thrived in spite of the change. Not because of it.
You're speaking nonsense. The rules of the Senate and the House have nothing to do with the Constitution. The rules of the Senate (and the House) are made up by the Senate and the House respectively.
Parliamentary rules exist because the bodies themselves believe its the most efficient way to hold a debate. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that debate must continue for X-minutes at a time in the House, or that the Senate will have enough time for infinite debate. Or the rule that says that debate alternates between Republicans and Democrats. These rules were made up by the House and the Senate to facilitate the debate environment that our own elected officials want.
As soon as you have more than 10-people in a room, all trying to talk at the same time... it becomes clear that a system of rules and an official "speaking order" for the matter of fairness is required. The House has 435 people trying to talk at once, while the Senate has 100 people trying to talk at once, and they're all "Alpha Dogs" who are trying to make the best of their individual states.
The Constitution didn't design shit actually. The framers of the Constitution didn't know how the House or the Senate would work. They just left it up to the future to figure it out. The Senate's structure is NOT
determined through the Constitution nor is it determined through Amendments. I dare you to find in the Constitution the requirements for committees, the Filibuster or debate times.
The Filibuster was never
designed. It just sorta happened as a natural result of the Senate feeling that any issue is required to have an infinite amount of debate if necessary. Originally, it took 66 Senators to break the Filibuster, but then it became 60 after the Filibuster started to get abused. It took no Amendment to change that. Hell, originally the HOUSE had a Filibuster opportunity until the 1840s, when the House Rules changed.
The "rules" are made by the House Rules Committee and the Senate Rules Committee. Who were anointed by the House (and Senate) to figure out the proper rules for the House (and Senate) respectively. Because very few people have an understanding of human behavior to make good rules that facilitate debate, and the changing culture of the USA means that the rules should change as our culture changes. This isn't "Constitution", this is virtually unwritten tradition of the House / Senate itself.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.