August 10, 2010 05:37 PM UTC

The Senate and the Constitution

•  
• by: JO

Required background reading:

1. “The Empty Chamber: Just How Broken is the Senate?” by George Packer, current New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/repor…

2. “America Goes Dark,” Paul Krugman. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…

Some may deny the common premise of both pieces: that America is in free-fall on many fronts — education, economy, energy (Krugman), and that one of our main institutions, the Senate, has shown itself incapable of addressing any of these problems, indeed, has consciously stood in the way of any action whatsoever (Packer).

We can debate the reasons for the latter. Does the influence of special interests have something to do with it? Almost assuredly. Is it just Republican intransigence for the past 18 months or so? I would say no; our political paralysis goes back much further than 2009, as do the problems that now appear to be reaching crisis proportions simultaneously. Can our current system of government get its act together to achieve effective solutions to our monumental problems all at the same time, which is surely what’s needed? I’m skeptical, but since cries of “revolution!” tend to get drowned out by the sleepy, low moan of “let’s not be too hasty, too radical” from those who see merit in standing still in the middle of the road, let’s turn to one possibility.

The Constitutional Solution. I’m referring here to the role of Senate rules in thwarting any effective action — any action at all. The filibuster is just one of them (see Packer for the dismal details). And since changing those rules mid-session is even more unlikely than passing key legislation under the existing rules, we turn to the Constitution, which specifically gives each Congress the right to establish its own new rules by a majority vote. Adopting new rules that replace old ones that now serve to stymie the chamber, and thus the entire nation, can be done only on Day One of each new Congress.

This is not without risk. What if Republicans gain control of the Senate with 51 votes, this year or in some future year? Yes, they could use new “majority rules” rules to impose their own radical approach. But I submit that our simultaneous crises have reached a stage that requires we take that risk, on grounds that some action is better than none, even if it proves which way not to go on any given issue.

Among the champions of the Constitutional approach to rules change is Senator Udall–the New Mexico one, not ours, although I don’t really know where Mark Udall stands on this, nor have I heard this specific issue addressed by either Romanoff or Bennet; I’m certain that no Republican is entertaining such a proposal. IF the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is to organize a common effort to stop the free-fall and reverse directions, we need to clear away a major roadblock–the old rules of the Senate–in January 2011. There’s not another minute to lose.

Now that the general election is set to begin, may we please hear from the Democratic candidate a vow to join Tom Udall and other “constitutionalists” in ridding us of the old rules, lest the old rules continue to direct us towards calamities on every front? This should be a front-and-center issue in the general election, and Democrats need to lead the way towards a solution.