Last week’s ‘crisis’ was the U.S. Senate’s majority vote to change Senate rules to eliminate filibustering of presidential appointments to the executive and judicial branches. Despite howls of protest, this change is probably a step in the right direction. The current Senate is a dysfunctional organization. The rule makes sense, whether the majority is Democratic or Republican.

The “rights” of the minority to obstruct executive or judicial appointments because they don’t like a particular law or a particular president does not exist in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution merely requires a majority vote of the Senate. To those who profess deference to what the “framers: drafted in the Constitution, it seems inconsistent to howl when the Senate moves to return the body to its original legislative intent.

The Senate, according to the Constitution, is free to make its own rules. The rules adopted since 1917 sought to protect the minority from being overwhelmed by the majority. These rules worked so long as they were only occasionally invoked. However, since President Obama was first elected, the strategy of the minority party was to oppose almost everything by filibuster and delay.

So, my vote is to change the Senate rules to allow some things to actually get done. If the minority were to attain a majority, I’m fine with keeping these rules in place for all.

Now, if there was only a way to get big money out of national politics…

Mary Welch

Litchfield

Newsletter