Alexander Hamilton rejected the idea of legislative supermajorities

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Rick Hertzberg quotes Alexander Hamilton arguing against a supermajority requirement:

What he was attacking was the premise that would one day underlie the McConnell-era filibuster—the notion that a legislature should routinely require supermajority approval for any action to be taken. For one thing,

To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to

subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser

.

That's bad enough in itself, but it becomes positively dangerous in times of serious trouble:

In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward.

If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority

, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence,

tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good

. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for

upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated

. It is often, by

the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes

, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

It's clear that the Constitution specified a few key areas where a supermajority would be required -- treaties, overriding vetoes, and Constitutional amendments -- with the obvious understanding that other votes would be conducted by majority rules. The filibuster simply evolved due to the imprecision of Senate rules.

It's interesting, given the right's newfound interest in hewing to the spirit of the Constitution. There are two key ways in which parts of the government have usurped power in clear violation of the intent of the Constitution. One is the filibuster. Another is the enormous war-making power of the president, who the Constitution clearly intended to constrain from initiating conflict without congressional approval. Somehow conservatives show no interest in restoring constitutionalism in either area.

http://www.tnr.com/b...ism-me-not-thee

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You complain about the filibuster now that the dems have the senate but 2 years from now when the situation is reversed you will say it is necessary to reign in the right. You are as transparent as window glass Steven. Nobody is listening to you on this one.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You complain about the filibuster now that the dems have the senate but 2 years from now when the situation is reversed you will say it is necessary to reign in the right. You are as transparent as window glass Steven. Nobody is listening to you on this one.

And with the new Filiblubber in action the Right shall maintain it's power forever and ever, amen! Zieghiel! I mean guzuntheit! Where are my tissues???

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The founding fathers never wanted the party system we have now, PERIOD.

The worst names they called people who tried to push party lines, who tried to make is about party A and party B, were "party men" which was a huge insult at the time, especially to ones intelligence.

The house and senate are a joke today compared to what was wanted. The Senate being the biggest joke as it's a body that was not supposed to elected by the people, but selected by state legislatures to represent the State.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You complain about the filibuster now that the dems have the senate but 2 years from now when the situation is reversed you will say it is necessary to reign in the right. You are as transparent as window glass Steven. Nobody is listening to you on this one.

Here's an idea when you post. Why not try to argue on the merits of the argument presented without using ad hominem...

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

Edited January 12, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Danno 1,228]

I too find the ideas of individual founders interesting..... but in the end, it is their collective agreements after debate which matter the most.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Here's an idea when you post. Why not try to argue on the merits of the argument presented without using ad hominem...

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

Thats just it, there are no merits to your argument. The senate makes their own rules. They are free to change them at will. I didn't hear you complain about it when the dems were in the minority and I doubt you will complain about it when they are back in the minority. Your motives for the constant complaints are evident to all.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Jefferson was not a big fan of Hamilton.

Jefferson was a strict constructionist. He desired a limited government, and thought Congress should be restricted to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In 1787, he wrote to James Madison from Paris, “I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.”

Jefferson and Hamilton became political rivals. In 1818, explaining the notes taken during his tenure as Secretary of State (Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury at the time), Jefferson remembered, “Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption.”

[luckytxn 2,264]

Jefferson was not a big fan of Hamilton.

Hamilton had many founders that disagreed with him. Most of the founders really did abhor the idea of the common man having a large voice at the Federal level. They really hated it when Jackson became president.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Jefferson was not a big fan of Hamilton.

Does Jefferson's opinions matter more than Hamilton's?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Does Jefferson's opinions matter more than Hamilton's?

If you are talking about American Idealism, then yes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you are talking about American Idealism, then yes.

So you embrace some sort of nondemocratic hierarchy among the Founding Fathers? Interesting, especially since none of them tried to usurp their power or silence dissenting opinions.

[luckytxn 2,264]

So you embrace some sort of nondemocratic hierarchy among the Founding Fathers? Interesting, especially since none of them tried to usurp their power or silence dissenting opinions.

Hamilton was killed because of feuding of ideas. Also may want to look up the Alien and Sedition act. There have been other tries during the early years but eventually they were rebuffed. Even some publishers were jailed for printing anything considered seditious.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So you embrace some sort of nondemocratic hierarchy among the Founding Fathers?

Funny how Jefferson said exactly that about Hamilton, so I guess you missed that in history class.

Interesting, especially since none of them tried to usurp their power or silence dissenting opinions.

Derp!

Alien and Sedition Acts

Under the threat of war with France, Congress in 1798 passed four laws in an effort to strengthen the Federal government. Known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the legislation sponsored by the Federalists was also intended to quell any political opposition from the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny how Jefferson said exactly that about Hamilton, so I guess you missed that in history class.

So those librul teachers of yours never said anything like this?

Most clear thinking Americans could probably tell you at least the rudimentary facts of who Thomas Jefferson was. Far fewer would likely have a definite idea of who Alexander Hamilton was and what his contributions as a Founding Father were. Yet his conception of an American government was just as important as that of Jefferson. Both founders foresaw the new nation as a great future power, and both had very different maps of how to get it there.

Or this?

Hamilton's party, known as the Federalists, favored a strong central government, a strong national bank, and an alliance with Britain (the nation with the strongest economy at the time). The Federalists passed protective tariffs to help American industry and considered the government's top priority the economy. The party died out after its defeat in the election of 1800, was reconstructed in the 1820's using the name Whig, and was the seed of the modern-day Republican party which formed in 1860.

Or this?

The party Jefferson formed was called the Democratic-Republicans, but went by the name Republicans because the words democrat and democracy were considered frightening. They favored strong state government since these were closer to the people. They opposed a national bank fearing the power this would give to the central government. They opposed the protective tariff and any other policies that would hurt the "little guy." In 1828, the party became known as the Democratic party and was essentially the root of today's party of the same name.