Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

markpkessinger's Journal
markpkessinger's Journal
March 24, 2021

The best argument against the filibuster is also the most obvious one . . .

. . . For anyone who doubts whether the filibuster is contrary to the intent of the framers of the Constitution, here's a simple question they can ask themselves that should provide immediate clarity:

If the framers had intended to require a [de facto] 60-vote majority in order to pass regular legislation, why would they have bothered to designate the Vice President to be a tie-breaking vote, since there never would have been any tie votes to worry about?
March 23, 2021

An alternative hypothesis on the Georgia Shooter

I'm going to propose an alternative theory about the shooter in Georgia. You may agree or disagree, but please hear me out.

I don't for a minute wish to minimize in any way the problem of the surge in anti-Asian bias crimes. It's a real problem and we need to address it. But based on what the shooter himself told police, some additional details that have been reported, and certain on-the-ground realities no one seems to want to talk about, what I see is a profoundly disturbed young man whose Southern Baptist church's obsession with sex as the primary locus of sin seriously messed with his head. Hence he came to view the women at these businesses, which he had frequented as a patron, as his "temptresses." And as some Christian men have done for a couple of millennia, he found it easier to place the locus of what his Church was telling him was his "sin" outside of himself, and blame the women instead.

As for those on-the-ground realities, here's what I'm talking about.: in just about any major metropolitan area in this country, one can find these Asian-owned and staffed massage parlors. Here in NYC, it's an open secret that these places, while operating ostensibly as legitimate businesses that indeed offer massage, the 'massage therapists' who work in many of them will offer, um, additional services, for an additional fee. And the fact of the matter is that these kinds of massage parlors are operated almost exclusively by Asians these days. So the fact that so many of the victims were Asian may have been merely incidental to the fact of who happens to own and work in them. And indeed, it has been reported that workers at one of the businesses involved were indeed arrested last year on prostitution charges, after one of them offered sexual services to an undercover cop.

Here is what I see as a very possible scenario: a 21-year-old, unstable young man, with hormones in overdrive, begins frequenting these places, and begins to take advantage of their "additional services." And he finds himself returning again and again for more gratification. Meanwhile, his church is feeding him a pathological view of his own sexuality (wouldn't exactly be the first time a Christian church did this, now would it?), essentially shaming him for enjoying the experiences he has been having, and in his emotionally confused and unstable state, the conflict becomes too much.

Look, none of this makes the shootings any less horrific, and I fully understand why it would appear to be racially motivated by many Asians who are already experiencing a wave of bias crimes. And indeed, it is quite possible that he does harbor racist views. But it is also quite possible that by reductively labeling it an Anti-Asian hate crime, we may be missing an important part of the picture.

March 10, 2021

What would James Madison have said about the filibuster?

I have been beyond perplexed by President Biden's stated desire to retain the filibuster. He keeps holding out hope that he will somehow be able to find common ground with Senate Republicans, as he did back in his days in the Senate. But this is not the same GOP we are dealing with (despite a few holdovers from his Senate days). I began to wonder what James Madison, the chief architect of the constitution, would have thought of the filibuster. And in Federalist Nos. 58 and 22, I found my answer.

in Federalist No. 58, defending the Constitution against supermajority requirements in all but a few constitutionally-defined circumstances, Madison wrote:

"It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.
"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."


And in Federalist 22, Madison identifies supermajority requirements as one of the principal causes of dysfunction in the Articles of Confederation:

"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. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. 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.”


The filibuster is an anti-democratic, anti-constitutional blight on the Senate. Created by racists (specifically by John C. Calhoun of South to protect Southern slavery from federal civil rights legislation in the 1840s), it has no place in our system and must be abolished!

Profile Information

Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PM
Number of posts: 8,395
Latest Discussions»markpkessinger's Journal