on the filibuster

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I agree. Suggest to SCUDS that he review the history of why the Constitution sets up this bicameral system for the legislative body.

As we all might remember from history class, the House of Representatives is the body set up to implement representation in a way proportional to the population in each state. This would obviously give the largest states at any time most of the power on legislative issues. Had this been the only legislature, the smaller states would not have signed the Constitution.

The Senate has 2 votes per state because the view that competes with population-based representation is one based on each state's sovreignty. All states are considered to have the same level of sovreignty -- especially when drafting the Constitution where unanimous approval was needed.

These two different approaches, with both being vital to getting legislation through, is intended to give both types of states -- large and small, a place where they are strong enough to influence legislation. It is designed to maximize stability and provide checks and balances within the legislative branch. This is in addition to the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.

Actually unanimous approval was not needed in either the convention (where three delegates refused to sign the finished document) or in the ratification process. Only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become operative (see Article VII).