The new rule passed with a 52-48 vote in the U.S. Senate marks the most blatant and obvious attempt at degrading the system of checks and balances in modern political history. The new filibuster rules, which allow for a simple majority vote as opposed to the two-thirds in confirming presidential appointees, essentially gives President Obama — and any future president — a blank check on appointments if the president's own party holds the Senate majority.
Debate and bipartisan support in confirming presidential appointments has now been rendered obsolete. These new rules completely undermine the "advice and consent of the Senate" provision of the Constitution in favor of a new policy of "advice and consent of the majority party."
This new policy in the Senate marks a sad day for those who believe in upholding the Constitution and the system of checks and balances espoused in this document. The proponents of the rule who argue that this will end deadlock are willing to sacrifice constitutional norms in favor of the appearance of efficiency. This issue is more than simple partisan politics, but rather is an issue regarding the complete disregard for American precedent and constitutional checks on the presidency.
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Reconnecting with Cuba is a good move —...
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- My view: In the name of God?
- My view: Doing away with cursive is bad idea...
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 62
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 43
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 35
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30