Making law in secret by "unanimous consent"

[unixronin]

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) voices concerns that the Senate passes over 90% of legislation without any debate, without amendment, and without a roll call vote.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If you think your bill needs to be passed unread and without amendments or a recorded vote, then I suggest that on the contrary, it almost certainly means it should not be passed at all.  Because if your bill is a benefit to the nation, then why do you need to hide it from the nation until it's a fait accompli and conceal who voted to pass it?

Comments

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

There are also a lot of people who don't want democracy: people who identify with the elites or people who did well in the system until the recent collapse and hope to do well again.

It has been quite a while since I was in my high school civics class, but it seems that I remember learning that this was never meant to be a democracy. It was meant to be (if memory serves) a Representative Republic. Those of us who value liberty and individual freedom need to stop calling this a democracy if we have any hope of ever reasserting those liberties and freedoms our Founding Fathers gave us.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Madison used the term "republic," by which he meant a government where the will of the people is expressed via elected representatives. The terms have run together over time in common usage, though, and saying "republic" without qualification creates confusion, so I prefer "democracy;" the technical distinction of Madison's time seems to me no longer of much value.

It remains the case that the Senate is, as it has been since the foundation of the republic of the USA, representative not of the people as a whole, but rather of the will of wealthy and powerful elites.