Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Change the Senate? Blasphemy! Change the Constitution? Why not?

Lately, Republicans have been shocked and appalled that Democrats are even considering arguments that could lead to them considering changes to the Senate's rulebook. At the same time, Republicans are planning to introduce no fewer than two major amendments to the United States Constitution. One would change the way the country grants citizenship. The other would remove Congress's discretion to run budget deficits and surpluses. And both these changes would be to the Constitution, which the Founders made very difficult to change, rather than to the Senate's rules, which they made very easy to change.

I think the word you're looking for here is "principled."

By Ezra Klein  |  August 9, 2010; 3:13 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Taxing the super-rich
Next: Where does the Laffer curve bend?

Comments

Ezra.. Your understanding of issues seems to be limited. Maybe that is why you can only write a paragraph about such large issues.. It is really a comment on the WaPo that such trash is printed on this site. If you took the time to even superficially look at the issues, maybe I would educate you.. Maybe you should write for the E Channel and maybe the WaPo should rethink their hiring practices..

Posted by: 2010Rout | August 9, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey 2010Rout: Thank you for writing one and only paragraph critiquing Ezra for writing one and only one paragraph.

I feel much better informed now -- thanks!

Posted by: paul65 | August 9, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Back in the day, Sen. William Promire gave out his "Golden Fleece" Awards for examples of government paid-for silliness. Always good for a laugh.

For example, I remember his mocking the few thousand dollars in funding for a study of how the exposure of a traditional society (the Sherpas of the Himalayas) to a strong dose of modern culture (via Western mounaineers) triggered an ultra-conservative cultural and religious backlash.

Certainly not relevant to anything I could imagine.

Or was it?

Posted by: rgalenrod | August 9, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Anyway, on a different note, regarding WikiLeaks and its claim that revealing classified documents during a war is "good for democracy," shouldn't all docs and info. regarding JournoList be "good for democracy"?

After all, that won't reveal any national security information, deals with the press and its coverage of politics, and won't get anyone hurt. Sound good? Looking forward to it.

Posted by: jcannes76 | August 9, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The GOP message is tailored to appeal at a more visceral level...like pro wrestling.

Posted by: tuber | August 9, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Back in the day, Sen. William Promire gave out his "Golden Fleece" Awards for examples of government paid-for silliness. Always good for a laugh.

For example, I remember his mocking the few thousand dollars in funding for a study of how the exposure of a traditional society (the Sherpas of the Himalayas) to a strong dose of modern culture (via Western mounaineers) triggered an ultra-conservative cultural and religious backlash.

Certainly not relevant to anything I could imagine.

Or was it?

Posted by: rgalenrod | August 9, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Notice how they, mainly Repubs refuse to amend the constitution when it comes to a direct threat to our democracy from corporations basically funding campaigns and how campaigns are funded but are contemptious when it comes to direct election of senators 17th or the equal protection Civil War 14th.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | August 9, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Paul65

Ezra set the parameters of the discussion... stupid and snarky comments... your welcome!

Posted by: 2010Rout | August 9, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see a poll on the attitudes of American voters towards both of those proposed amendments.

Posted by: bgmma50 | August 9, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Republicans since Reagan have made destruction of a function Government an ideological imperative. From "Government is the problem" to "Starve it, kill it" to the direct and complete obstruction of "The Party of Hell, No!

Like parents who beat their children because the bible says so and it's good for them, elected Senators are hired to run a government that they feel they are morally obligated to stop.

Considering they represent the least populated, least educated and least healthy states in the Union, you have to ask .... are they simply committing suicide by ideology?

Posted by: thebobbob | August 9, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

While we're creating our constitutional amendment wish list, can we throw in the line item veto for the President too?

Posted by: bgmma50 | August 9, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Ezra : The GOP interest in constitutional amendments: a) to restrict birth rights to U. S. citizenship of children of selected immigrant workers , and b) the Congress 's control over the government 's life line of economics and finances , is led by a political strategy to mobilize their base for the future elections . The U. S. population has witnessed drastic changes demographically , beyond imagination of any one since 1776 . The GOP in order to avert the glorious mess , has to start on this road of reforms sooner than later . The framers of the Constitution had no vision about the U. S. population's diversity in ethnicity , languages , cultures , religious beliefs and of economic interest groups etc . The 2006 and 2008 election results were no surprises . The grand old party has to plan ahead .

Posted by: dmfarooq | August 9, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

I actually agree with Republicans with respect to amending the 14th amendment. Granting automatic citizenship to the children of those who are here either temporarily or illegally is neither fair nor good policy. Indeed, it is impossible to have a fair immigration system that contains such an obvious and easily-exploited loophole, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this.

Only children born to at least one American citizen should be granted automatic citizenship. This isn't rocket science. It's pretty simple, really.

Change

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

to

"All persons born of an American citizen, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

and you have just fixed all the major problems. Any critiques?

Posted by: brickcha | August 9, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

i think the word you were looking for is 'hypocrites'.

Posted by: SnowleopardNZ | August 10, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company