The Wisdom of Our Founders

People don't realize how well thought out our system of government truly is. Built into that system is a series of checks and balances that are almost unmatched by any other form of government. While most people understand the primary "check and balance" system is that of the three Branches -- the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial -- they sometimes overlook the differences that were intentionally designed into the two Houses of Congress: The House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

The House of Representatives is truly a representative form of democracy: Purely republican (little "r" republican) in its structure. It's republican because its membership is, in theory, equally apportioned by the population within each state (although, the two political parties are always trying to skew the apportioning process so they wind up with more representatives than their opposing party).

But, what most people don't realize is that the Senate is "intentionally" less representative. In our system of government, each state, whether large or small or rich or poor, still has only two Senators. In its simplicity and brilliance, the structure of the U.S. Senate gives little states and poorer states the same amount of power as the wealthier and more populous states. So, in effect, the Senate is the great equalizer.

Recently, some democrats have been calling for the elimination of the super-majority requirement to abate or kill the filibusterer. Of course, this cry-out for change only comes after this President and this Congress lost its super-majority following the results of the Massachusetts Senate election. The latest call comes from that pillar of completely partisan politics: Tom Harkin of Iowa (Click to See Full Story: "Some Democratic Senators Want to End Filibusters")

The Democrats, whose party name is supposedly built on the word Democracy, never seem to be satisfied with the rules of our Democracy. When John Kerry was running for the Presidency and the Dems thought he would win, the Democrats in control of the Massachusetts legislature voted for a special election replacement of his Senate seat because they thought that, under the current rule, the then-Republican Governor, Mitt Romney, might appoint a Republican to replace Kerry. Then, later, when Ted Kennedy died and they had a Democratic Governor in control, they voted to go back to the Governor's power of appointing a replacement for Kennedy. Now, in another "rule" busting attempt, because the filibuster rule doesn't fit their political agenda, they want to abandon the super-majority rule so they can completely pass their left wing agenda unabated.

In my opinion, the filibuster rule should stand. Our founders wanted the Senate to be something other than a rubber-stamp for one political party, a single ideology, or for the benefit of the big and powerful states. They wanted Senators to work together for the benefit of this country and the filibuster does just that. That's why the Senate is special and its rules should remain special and not just based on some simple majority rule concept.