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

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The senate was DESIGNED to be less beholden to the populace than either the house, or the president. That is why they had six year terms of office. Who the Senators were actually beholden to was the business of the people electing them in the first place. Money has always been an issue.

The traditions in the Senate are different from the ones in the House. For one thing, there is more collegiality. The whole process is designed to foster "gridlock" in times when partisan tensions are high or populist demagoguery are in style. The goal is not to "get things done" but to do the least amount of harm. Personally, I like that in a government. Even if it means that some of my pet projects are delayed. (Or an opposing party is in power.)

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I agree that the Senate was designed as you say. Not just to protect money, though: it protected the class system of the early USA. The Senate early became the ground where the South defended slavery, and then segregation. It is now the place where the support of torture and the opposition to habeas corpus runs highest. It is the more populist House which is usually the less crazy, though perhaps that would change were the Senate gone. The Senate deadlocks during the quiet times; the times when tension runs high: war, the end of war, or economic chaos are the only times it moves and then usually in a panic. I am reminded of George F. Kennan's description of how the USA makes foreign policy: like some prehistoric monster which, when you kick its tail, bellows and charges two minutes later!

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

And I maintain that those descriptions are a feature, not a bug, of our American Republic. They are designed to preserve the Republic, do it does not become a Democracy, which is far too easily subverted. (As events in the world over the past 25 years have amply demonstrated. Take Russia as exhibit A)

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

It the Senate preserving the republic or is it just stubborn? Whenever a bad situation arises or a policy fails the Senate is there to prolong the problem until it becomes a crisis.

What do you see the relevance of either the USSR or Russia here?

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Russia is an experiment in more direct democracy. The democracy has been corrupted, and a small group effectively hold power over the entire nation. I don't want that kind of democracy. The two houses in our congress tend to prevent that kind of take over. It is still possible, but harder.

All-in-all, I prefer the brakes the Senate provides to most change to the alternative possibilities. We could lose our freedoms while we watched, with nothing we could do about it, if the Senate were more responsive and compliant.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

We lost many freedoms in "the big zero (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28krugman.html)," and the Senate has participated. Watching the Senate's interaction with the financial and health insurance industry, it is clear that a small group dominates the Senate--or rather that a majority Senators represent various elite factions. Reading history, it appears this has been the case from the from the inception of the US republic. I will admit that I don't know that a unicameral legislature would have fared better, but I doubt it would have done worse.

My impression of Russia was that she made huge mistakes in the economic reforms of the 1980s and the rest followed. How do you see a different legislative model as preventing this? Come to that, the USA made similar mistakes in the same period--Russia was following the same theories that the US was using. Um. Now, that's interesting...