Timothy Snyder" On Tyranny" is instructive. Then read his "Black Earth" and see what happens when fascism takes over and established governments which singularly lie, rape, torture, murder and keep violence and misinformation as their tools which resulted in millions dying in WWII. In the USA we have Republican governments in at least 19…
Timothy Snyder" On Tyranny" is instructive. Then read his "Black Earth" and see what happens when fascism takes over and established governments which singularly lie, rape, torture, murder and keep violence and misinformation as their tools which resulted in millions dying in WWII. In the USA we have Republican governments in at least 19 states (a) repressing the vote (b) passing laws so that they determine the validity of their own elections , essentially setting about to defraud the voters, (c) passing anti-privacy laws, (d) punishing innocent rape victims or careless teens, (e) not believing in separation of church and state .....need I say more. We have 18-30 year olds (30 million) not voting, we have disabled people unable to gain fair access to the ballot box and a US Senate using a non constitutional filibuster to stop legislators from doing their jobs.
WAKE UP AMERICA: WE ARE ON A very slippery slope. PLEASE CALL YOUR US SENATORS AND DEMAND THEY END THE FILIBUSTER FOR THE JOHN R LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
Also read "How Fascism Works" (Stanley) and "How Democracies Die" (Levitsky) and "The Road to Unfreedom" (Snyder). What Mitch McConnell did to Obama was unprecedented....... Not allowing Garland a place on the Supreme Court. What Newt Gingrich did was allow attacks on tolerance and political norms that had guarded democracy here in the US for over a century. Both of them set the stage for Trump but it is the lack of political courage by the Republican Party and the failure to constrain an authoritarian demagogue that has caused us to fracture.
Alice, I write specifically in response to your last mostly capitalized paragraph. First, I would note, contrary to the Freedom to Vote Act whose provisions not only provide the necessary safeguards against both voter suppression and election subversion but also would supersede state law in conflict with any of its stipulations, that the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act is not preemptive and therefore cannot overturn state laws that already have passed. Consequently, I advise we be wary were the Senate to set aside the filibuster solely to pass the John Lewis Act.
Second, I believe it’s important we recall last January, that through a procedural maneuver, Schumer was able to bring the newly combined Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to the floor for debate and a vote. As expected, when the 50-50 vote failed to reach the 60-vote threshold, Schumer called for a second vote for filibuster reform. Despite Senate Dems settling on an extremely modest filibuster rule change that would have allowed each side 100 speaking hours before getting to an up or down majority vote, Manchin and Sinema voted with the 50 Republicans to oppose the rule change.
Please note I have reviewed this recent history so we tactically can decide upon next steps. Though this should have occurred back in January, in my view, Biden, along with Democratic leadership, must call out Manchin’s & Sinema’s mere support for voter protection safeguards as hollow and performative, absent their willingness to do their part to figure out how the filibuster could be modified to pass the combined voter protection bill under regular order even if it meant taking a long time to get to an up or down majority vote.
My pleasure, Becky. From the outset, I have regarded this community as an opportunity to share our understanding and, thus, enhance our effectiveness to work for change.
The Constitution empowers the Senate to make its own rules. Roughly 200 years ago, senators updating their rules accidentally failed to include a rule about ending debate when it dragged on too long. Slave-holding Senators proceeded to use that omission to talk anti-slavery bills to death. Since it was so useful, pro-slavery senators and their successors held tight to the maneuver and did an effective job of enshrining (aka idolizing) it. At some point, senators changed their rules so that now not even talking is required - just an email saying ‘I block this.’ The filibuster is nothing but a senate procedure - at first, really a lack of a procedure - that has been used mainly to block civil rights bills. By the same token, a simple majority of senators can modify, bypass, or get rid of it at any time.
Anne-Louise, I don’t know what part of my comment prompted this question. Suffice it to say that neither legality nor constitutionality are relevant. The filibuster merely is a Senate procedural rule that dates back to the early 19th Century as a process to end debate. (The House never adopted the rule because representatives only are permitted to speak for 30 minutes.)
Regrettably, the filibuster, largely, had become a tactic for thwarting the majority party. In its current form, I regard it as a minority veto over the will of the majority and, thus, the source for most everything that is disfunctional in our politics.
The fact that the framers made many concessions to the South and slavery to get approval for the Constitution still lives with us today. Add to that 2 Senators per state and electoral college, you have the perfect structure for minority rule. Slave holding South maintains its mastery over machinery over gov't despite enactment of 13. 14 & 15 Amendments which Alito & other Repubs on SCOTUS want to ignore. Death of over 700,000 in Civil War did not wash the stain of slavery from our collective souls as Lincoln hoped. He was killed, too. Irony is Republicans of 1860's tried to save the Union and today's Republicans want to break it up. Poor Abe!
Sterling, I will reply to the valid points you raise when I return home later tonight. That reply also will include justification for asserting that most everything that is disfunctional in our politics, in my view, can be attributed, at this point, to the filibuster.
Sterling, I apologize for the delayed response, but frankly 4AM Friday morning has been my first real break all week. To start, I agree that this experiment in democracy called America has always been inextricably interwoven with white supremacy and its legacy, a hypocrisy too many regrettably deny or avoid. As for the anti-democratic electoral college and Senate, despite the odds, I still think it worthwhile, in the case of one, to try and add enough states to the interstate compact to reach the equivalent of 270 electoral votes and, in the case of the other, to grant statehood to DC and possibly to Puerto Rico. I believe we could accomplish the latter in 23 were we to hold the House, pick up at least 2 Senate seats, and abolish the filibuster, which, in my view, is meant even further to entrench minority rule and, thus, make it harder and harder for Democrats to win elections, let alone govern even if they do win substantial electoral majorities.
This last point is based on my perception that, contrary to contemporary Republicans who care only about tax cuts, judges, and staying in power through any means, Democrats want to tackle education, climate, healthcare, the economy, criminal justice, and immigration reform, legislation that largely remains stalled in the Senate, blocked by the requisite 60-vote threshold.
Thank you Barbara. For me, the core of your fine summary rests in your last sentence here--that the filibuster is, in whatever form, a tool that allows the minority to rule over the majority. That is, of course, the given of authoritarian government that in fact negates, in any corner, rule by the will of the people. It is possible, from that launching pad to manipulate the vote and discard it if you don't like the results. There are nearly 20 states poised to slam this into place. Along with the ruling on Roe, we are very close to the point at which we have painted ourselves into a corner.
This is when I get frightened. When I am comforted the many-headed beast and there seem to be too many blocked passages to know where to begin..
Dean, I don’t know if this reply is helpful, but I derive enormous gratification being in community with fellow travelers, who have committed to standing against the deep and pervasive corruption that has settled upon the republic.
Thank you, Barbara. I, too, have been not just gratified but encouraged and filled with hope and determination by the simple, profound impact of community. For most of my long journey I have believed absolutely in the great balance and rotation of the universe that (with a little help from its friends) would bring us right again. Most days I can still get there (with a little help from folks like you), but I have to confess that what stretches around us in all directions today is an alien landscape. From news reports and history books we are not unfamiliar with this phenomenon but only recently do I recognize the face of authoritarianism here and now and in this ;real world. I, for one, now see that I must also join the community of those who somehow missed it as it approached, looked away, blinked. And, although it has seemed sudden, where we are now has been constructed one small piece at a time over a great long while.
All that said, I am greatly encouraged by your words, by Dr. Richardson's brilliant skills at both summarizing and placing firmly into their historical context the horrors of the day and, as you suggest, the community of fellow travelers speaking freely. Intelligent conversation calms the spirit.
It has been adopted as a senate rule, originally as a method to limit endless debate, I believe. The House used to have something similar but got rid of it. A filibuster used to require the filibuster-er to talk without a break, even through the night. In recent years the senate adopted a rule that a senator could just SAY s/he was going to filibuster, without actually taking the floor and talking—the lazy man’s filibuster as it were. It’s nothing to do with law or constitutionality.
I will seek expertise but the Article 1.4 of the US Constitution makes it clear that Congress may amend or alter the actions of state legislatures What is your authority?
Alice, As stated in my original comment, contrary to the Freedom to Vote Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is not preemptive. Hence it would have jurisdiction only over state legislation enacted after its passage.
I noted Herb requested permission to publish your letter. Though the choice is yours, you’re welcome to use any of my text if you decide to revise your concluding paragraph.
Postscript: Alice, Because this past January the two voter protection bills were combined to become the “Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act,” you simply could replace what you wrote with the recently combined filibustered bill.
Alice, I didn’t present a premise. I merely related the contents contained in the two bills and added that this past January the two had been combined.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your comment that previously enacted state legislation remains in effect is not correct. Article 1.4 makes it clear that Congress can supersede State laws. So, too, the 14th and 15th Amendments.
ACTION FOR ALL:
Contact YOUR US Senators directly by phone and tell them to do their duty and bring H.R.5746 to the floor of the Senate for debate and a vote with no filibuster. Contact Collins, Murkowski, Sinema and Manchin's offices. Demand they protect our democracy.
Call today. Email your grandkids, kids, students friends and business associates and ask them to do the same.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Call at night and leave a message.
HERE IS THE EASY MESSAGE. HERE ARE THE LINKS.
“Protect our voting rights and support H.R. 5746. NO FILIBUSTER for voting rights!”
I would like permission to submit your letter to the Exeter Newsletter (published under the Seacoast Media Group in Portsmouth, NH; part of the "USA Today" network). I would submit it under your name; better yet, you could submit it by sending it to newsletter@seacoastonline.com. You can reach me at herb.moyer@comcast.net. I know the Publishing Editor, and may be able to convince him that it is OK to publish a letter from outside our geographic readership area.... something I was not able to accomplish when I sent a letter critical of the Trump administration to the editors of the major newspapers in southern state newspapers 2-3 years ago.
Timothy Snyder" On Tyranny" is instructive. Then read his "Black Earth" and see what happens when fascism takes over and established governments which singularly lie, rape, torture, murder and keep violence and misinformation as their tools which resulted in millions dying in WWII. In the USA we have Republican governments in at least 19 states (a) repressing the vote (b) passing laws so that they determine the validity of their own elections , essentially setting about to defraud the voters, (c) passing anti-privacy laws, (d) punishing innocent rape victims or careless teens, (e) not believing in separation of church and state .....need I say more. We have 18-30 year olds (30 million) not voting, we have disabled people unable to gain fair access to the ballot box and a US Senate using a non constitutional filibuster to stop legislators from doing their jobs.
WAKE UP AMERICA: WE ARE ON A very slippery slope. PLEASE CALL YOUR US SENATORS AND DEMAND THEY END THE FILIBUSTER FOR THE JOHN R LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
Also read "How Fascism Works" (Stanley) and "How Democracies Die" (Levitsky) and "The Road to Unfreedom" (Snyder). What Mitch McConnell did to Obama was unprecedented....... Not allowing Garland a place on the Supreme Court. What Newt Gingrich did was allow attacks on tolerance and political norms that had guarded democracy here in the US for over a century. Both of them set the stage for Trump but it is the lack of political courage by the Republican Party and the failure to constrain an authoritarian demagogue that has caused us to fracture.
I've read Levitsky, too. but not Stanley or the other Snyder. Thanks.
Alice, I write specifically in response to your last mostly capitalized paragraph. First, I would note, contrary to the Freedom to Vote Act whose provisions not only provide the necessary safeguards against both voter suppression and election subversion but also would supersede state law in conflict with any of its stipulations, that the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act is not preemptive and therefore cannot overturn state laws that already have passed. Consequently, I advise we be wary were the Senate to set aside the filibuster solely to pass the John Lewis Act.
Second, I believe it’s important we recall last January, that through a procedural maneuver, Schumer was able to bring the newly combined Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to the floor for debate and a vote. As expected, when the 50-50 vote failed to reach the 60-vote threshold, Schumer called for a second vote for filibuster reform. Despite Senate Dems settling on an extremely modest filibuster rule change that would have allowed each side 100 speaking hours before getting to an up or down majority vote, Manchin and Sinema voted with the 50 Republicans to oppose the rule change.
Please note I have reviewed this recent history so we tactically can decide upon next steps. Though this should have occurred back in January, in my view, Biden, along with Democratic leadership, must call out Manchin’s & Sinema’s mere support for voter protection safeguards as hollow and performative, absent their willingness to do their part to figure out how the filibuster could be modified to pass the combined voter protection bill under regular order even if it meant taking a long time to get to an up or down majority vote.
Thank you very much for this kind, clear, and informative explanation.
My pleasure, Becky. From the outset, I have regarded this community as an opportunity to share our understanding and, thus, enhance our effectiveness to work for change.
Foreigner speaking: how is a filibuster legal, if not constitutional?
The Constitution empowers the Senate to make its own rules. Roughly 200 years ago, senators updating their rules accidentally failed to include a rule about ending debate when it dragged on too long. Slave-holding Senators proceeded to use that omission to talk anti-slavery bills to death. Since it was so useful, pro-slavery senators and their successors held tight to the maneuver and did an effective job of enshrining (aka idolizing) it. At some point, senators changed their rules so that now not even talking is required - just an email saying ‘I block this.’ The filibuster is nothing but a senate procedure - at first, really a lack of a procedure - that has been used mainly to block civil rights bills. By the same token, a simple majority of senators can modify, bypass, or get rid of it at any time.
But, alas, it's not that simple, is it?
Simple, yes. Easy, no.
Anne-Louise, I don’t know what part of my comment prompted this question. Suffice it to say that neither legality nor constitutionality are relevant. The filibuster merely is a Senate procedural rule that dates back to the early 19th Century as a process to end debate. (The House never adopted the rule because representatives only are permitted to speak for 30 minutes.)
Regrettably, the filibuster, largely, had become a tactic for thwarting the majority party. In its current form, I regard it as a minority veto over the will of the majority and, thus, the source for most everything that is disfunctional in our politics.
The fact that the framers made many concessions to the South and slavery to get approval for the Constitution still lives with us today. Add to that 2 Senators per state and electoral college, you have the perfect structure for minority rule. Slave holding South maintains its mastery over machinery over gov't despite enactment of 13. 14 & 15 Amendments which Alito & other Repubs on SCOTUS want to ignore. Death of over 700,000 in Civil War did not wash the stain of slavery from our collective souls as Lincoln hoped. He was killed, too. Irony is Republicans of 1860's tried to save the Union and today's Republicans want to break it up. Poor Abe!
Sterling, I will reply to the valid points you raise when I return home later tonight. That reply also will include justification for asserting that most everything that is disfunctional in our politics, in my view, can be attributed, at this point, to the filibuster.
Sterling, I apologize for the delayed response, but frankly 4AM Friday morning has been my first real break all week. To start, I agree that this experiment in democracy called America has always been inextricably interwoven with white supremacy and its legacy, a hypocrisy too many regrettably deny or avoid. As for the anti-democratic electoral college and Senate, despite the odds, I still think it worthwhile, in the case of one, to try and add enough states to the interstate compact to reach the equivalent of 270 electoral votes and, in the case of the other, to grant statehood to DC and possibly to Puerto Rico. I believe we could accomplish the latter in 23 were we to hold the House, pick up at least 2 Senate seats, and abolish the filibuster, which, in my view, is meant even further to entrench minority rule and, thus, make it harder and harder for Democrats to win elections, let alone govern even if they do win substantial electoral majorities.
This last point is based on my perception that, contrary to contemporary Republicans who care only about tax cuts, judges, and staying in power through any means, Democrats want to tackle education, climate, healthcare, the economy, criminal justice, and immigration reform, legislation that largely remains stalled in the Senate, blocked by the requisite 60-vote threshold.
Thank you Barbara. For me, the core of your fine summary rests in your last sentence here--that the filibuster is, in whatever form, a tool that allows the minority to rule over the majority. That is, of course, the given of authoritarian government that in fact negates, in any corner, rule by the will of the people. It is possible, from that launching pad to manipulate the vote and discard it if you don't like the results. There are nearly 20 states poised to slam this into place. Along with the ruling on Roe, we are very close to the point at which we have painted ourselves into a corner.
This is when I get frightened. When I am comforted the many-headed beast and there seem to be too many blocked passages to know where to begin..
Dean, I don’t know if this reply is helpful, but I derive enormous gratification being in community with fellow travelers, who have committed to standing against the deep and pervasive corruption that has settled upon the republic.
Thank you, Barbara. I, too, have been not just gratified but encouraged and filled with hope and determination by the simple, profound impact of community. For most of my long journey I have believed absolutely in the great balance and rotation of the universe that (with a little help from its friends) would bring us right again. Most days I can still get there (with a little help from folks like you), but I have to confess that what stretches around us in all directions today is an alien landscape. From news reports and history books we are not unfamiliar with this phenomenon but only recently do I recognize the face of authoritarianism here and now and in this ;real world. I, for one, now see that I must also join the community of those who somehow missed it as it approached, looked away, blinked. And, although it has seemed sudden, where we are now has been constructed one small piece at a time over a great long while.
All that said, I am greatly encouraged by your words, by Dr. Richardson's brilliant skills at both summarizing and placing firmly into their historical context the horrors of the day and, as you suggest, the community of fellow travelers speaking freely. Intelligent conversation calms the spirit.
Again, thanks
Well done Barbara! Thank you.
It has been adopted as a senate rule, originally as a method to limit endless debate, I believe. The House used to have something similar but got rid of it. A filibuster used to require the filibuster-er to talk without a break, even through the night. In recent years the senate adopted a rule that a senator could just SAY s/he was going to filibuster, without actually taking the floor and talking—the lazy man’s filibuster as it were. It’s nothing to do with law or constitutionality.
A bit like a Scrabble rule. And it's used to block the passage of a law. That is extraordinary.
Same question from old citizen
I will seek expertise but the Article 1.4 of the US Constitution makes it clear that Congress may amend or alter the actions of state legislatures What is your authority?
Alice, As stated in my original comment, contrary to the Freedom to Vote Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is not preemptive. Hence it would have jurisdiction only over state legislation enacted after its passage.
I noted Herb requested permission to publish your letter. Though the choice is yours, you’re welcome to use any of my text if you decide to revise your concluding paragraph.
Postscript: Alice, Because this past January the two voter protection bills were combined to become the “Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act,” you simply could replace what you wrote with the recently combined filibustered bill.
H.R.5746 is the combined bill
I totally disagree with your entire premise.
How do you think they got rid of voting rights legislation in the south
Alice, I didn’t present a premise. I merely related the contents contained in the two bills and added that this past January the two had been combined.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your comment that previously enacted state legislation remains in effect is not correct. Article 1.4 makes it clear that Congress can supersede State laws. So, too, the 14th and 15th Amendments.
ACTION FOR ALL:
Contact YOUR US Senators directly by phone and tell them to do their duty and bring H.R.5746 to the floor of the Senate for debate and a vote with no filibuster. Contact Collins, Murkowski, Sinema and Manchin's offices. Demand they protect our democracy.
Call today. Email your grandkids, kids, students friends and business associates and ask them to do the same.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Call at night and leave a message.
HERE IS THE EASY MESSAGE. HERE ARE THE LINKS.
“Protect our voting rights and support H.R. 5746. NO FILIBUSTER for voting rights!”
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
1-202-224-3121
Alice,
I would like permission to submit your letter to the Exeter Newsletter (published under the Seacoast Media Group in Portsmouth, NH; part of the "USA Today" network). I would submit it under your name; better yet, you could submit it by sending it to newsletter@seacoastonline.com. You can reach me at herb.moyer@comcast.net. I know the Publishing Editor, and may be able to convince him that it is OK to publish a letter from outside our geographic readership area.... something I was not able to accomplish when I sent a letter critical of the Trump administration to the editors of the major newspapers in southern state newspapers 2-3 years ago.
Indeed you have my permission. And anyone else
HEAR, HEAR!!!