From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster
Lines: 55
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA


In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

|>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything
|>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out.
|>
|>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer
|>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough
|>proof it was there for just a tad bit more.

Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. They
certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this
was not necessarily their true position.

|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
|>>set in.
|>
|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)

The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question.
The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914
and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has
considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body. 


|>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely
|>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their 
|>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed
|>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act
|>as a check on the more-often elected House.

The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up
a bit too slow.


|>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be
|>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the
|>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about
|>a "veto" by the Senate.

The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it
in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent
of being a check on unreasonable legislation. The veto was clearly regarded 
as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to
preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.

the Senate is not meant to be exactly a rubber stamp body, it is meant as
a check on unrestrained legislation. That is the extra measure built into
the constitution in favour of the status quo, 60% of the representatives
of the states is not a reasonable restriction. 
