One big problem with our system of government.

[Jeebo]

It was set up on the assumption that the contending factions would be the different branches of the government -- senators against the president, representatives against senators, judges against the president, etc. Executive branch officials contending against legislative branch senators and representatives, judicial branch officials fighting with legislators, executive branch officials squabbling with judicial branch officials.

But that's not the way things have worked out. Instead of contentiousness between government branches, the contentiousness actually is between political parties. Different factions often within the same branch fighting over ideology or pure greed or other concerns.

Thom Hartmann mentions occasionally on his radio show that the founders did not approve of what they called "factions" -- what we now call political parties. I would say this is the reason for those concerns.

I don't have any suggestions as to what to do about this source of disfunction within our government. I'm just passing along my observation. I wish I knew of something that could be done about it.

-- Ron

[brush]

1. Much of the disfunction of the US government is the filibuster...

in the Senate. The Senate is broken as the minority controls it and quite often overrules the majority. It is why SCOTUS has stolen justices sitting on it and taking rights from women.

The 60 vote requirement is not in the Constitution and is just a rule adopted to help slave states maintain their enslavement of human beings.

If the Senate had a simple majority like House, legislation would get passed that actually helps people and it would force each party to come up with legislation that would pass because it helps people.

[Jeebo]

3. I agree, and in a sense that proves my point.

The system of checks and balances doesn't do anything to check or balance what the Republican members of the U.S. Senate do to Democratic members of that same body. The system of checks and balances was set up to check and balance one branch of the government against another, the assumption being when it was all set up that those would be the contentious factions of the government, but nothing was set up to check and balance members of the same branch against each other.

For now, we need at least two more Democratic senators, and of course also to hold on to the House, and then we'll be able to get some things done.

-- Ron

[Tetrachloride]

2. The aggressive Senators and House members get the headlines

and there are more aggressive Republicans on TV than Dems.

[brush]

4. Get rid of the filibuster and aggresive senators won't have an advantage.

They'll be one vote like everyone else and won't have the 60 vote requirement backing up their aggressive stances.

[Tetrachloride]

5. my real opinion is against some DU rules

[brush]

6. What does that mean?