Unrelated Amendments & Riders – Tricks of the Political Trade

(provided as a comment on H.R.2578 on the excellent website 4US.com)

H.R.2578 is a good example of legislative and political manipulation designed to confuse the public and hide important issue votes -- the practice of adding unrelated amendments, indirectly related and riders to bills under consideration. It is a ploy designed to deceive the public, sneak through legislation and make it difficult to hold legislators accountable. You can see here on the 4US.com website, the important significance of some of the amendments to this bill that were considered and voted on are not revealed and you cannot tell how your Members voted. Unrelated amendments are a significant contributor to Congressional gridlock and broken government and should be eliminated.

The primary purpose of this bill was to provide appropriations to the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice (DOJ), science agencies, and several related agencies. Yet four, highly controversial amendments relating to gun regulations were offered and defeated in separate and very close votes.

See: Senate rejects all gun bills - Democrats and Republicans took turns defeating dueling proposals on background checks and efforts to prevent terrorists from buying firearms. June 20, 2016

See also: all details for H.R.2578 - Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, including amendments and links to roll call votes on the Congress.gov website.

How should Congress react to the Orlando shooting?

(Response to a question posted on the Quora website)

In a better world, Congress should react to the Orlando shooting by doing something close to the wishes of the majority American public and in their best interest in terms of their public safety and security. Unfortunately, the Congressional action we have seen in reaction to Orlando, Sandy Hook and countless others, is the most appalling example of gridlock and a broken government – Congress did nothing; again, and again, and again.

According to a CNN/ORC Poll. June 16-19, 2016. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

• 55% favor stricter gun control laws
• 54% favor an outright ban on “assault-type guns
• 54% favor a ban on high-capacity or extended ammunition clips
• 92% favor expanded background checks
• 87 % favor preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns
• 85% favor preventing people who are on the U.S. government's Terrorist Watchlist or no-fly list from owning guns

So, the American public clearly wants expanded controls and regulations of guns and people who buy them; however, the same poll also shows us that 90% of the public opposes preventing all Americans from owning guns. So, the public does not want the government to “take our guns away”, and based on public opinion, it seems to be only a fantasy conspiracy theory that such an action would ever be undertaken.

Despite the overwhelming public will; despite an old fashion standing Senate filibuster; despite an unprecedented 26-hour sit-in by House Democrats – Congress refused to do anything with respect to the Orlando shooting. If Congress didn’t act following the slaughter of twenty, 6 and 7 year olds at Sandy Hook; should we be surprised that they didn’t react to a massacre of 49 innocent souls in an Orlando nightclub?

While it may be easy to blame the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their money and lobbyists, we need to look deeper at what allows Congress to blatantly disregard public opinion and give so much power to a minority interest. It’s not just the NRA and it’s not just the gun issue. It’s about a host of issues and the inability of Congress to address difficult issues and take action.

It’s the result of a complex labyrinth of House and Senate rules (formal and informal) and procedures that are designed to frustrate the Founding Father’s cornerstone of democracy – “majority rule.” Thomas Jefferson, a staunch advocate of majority rule said: "Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

A scary thought for sure; and when it’s boiled down, the lack of majority rule is the underlying reason for most of the public unrest that is characterized as broken, dysfunctional government and gridlock. When you prevent majority rule you allow a minority to control decisions, as Alexander Hamilton pointed out, “To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision). . .” Federalist Paper #22.

Yes, we have a very divided electorate which seems to have grown more divided in recent years. But, the move to prevent majority rule has also made it more difficult to craft bipartisan solutions.

In the House of Representatives a measure cannot even be brought to the Floor unless a majority of the majority party (Republicans) agrees – the so-called “Hastart Rule”. Thus, based on the current numbers of Republican and Democrats in the House, all major issues are controlled by 29% of the members.

In the Senate, the old, standing filibuster has evolved into the new “silent” filibuster, where a Member simply says he will filibuster and action which then automatically requires a supermajority of 60 to bring an action to a vote. And, if that’s not enough, there is now an overused procedure called a “Senatorial hold” which allows any individual Senator to bring any action to a halt by placing a “hold” on it until certain demands are met.

These are just some of the procedural “tricks” that are used to prevent majority rule and they are used by both Democrats and Republicans. The sad part is that all Senators and Representatives know these procedures are resulting in the political gridlock that the public resents, but they refuse to eliminate them. Both parties use them to prevent majority rule, avoid responsibility, and create the gridlock which they can use as an excuse for their inaction.

The media, responsible government reform organizations, and the few ethical Members of the House and Senate (we used to call them “statesmen”) need to focus more attention on these, modern-day “demons of democracy” and the ease by which they could be eliminated if the right public pressure were applied.

Reasonable gun control regulations could have been implemented years ago, and many other important issues could have been addressed if these destructive mechanisms were scrubbed or seriously revised. And, who knows how many lives might have been saved.

Some Reddit Discussions On Filibuster & Broken Government

Let's discuss filibuster reform. What would changes in procedure look like? from PoliticalDiscussion

Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters from politics

Why hasn't the Senate reformed the filibuster system? from NeutralPolitics

The Senate and the filibuster, is there a way to preserve minority rights and a functional legislative body in todays political environment? from NeutralPolitics

Senate reformers are talking about new filibuster rules that'd require minority senators to keep talking during the entire length of their filibuster - No more nonsense about just announcing a filibuster & then heading out for drinks. from politics

What Is Broken Government & What Do We Really Want?

Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders have both done a good thing in publicizing what we already knew -- "The system is rigged." It's good that the criticism has come from both sides of the political aisle. President Obama should do more to explain the rigged system to the American public in his remaining days while he is not encumbered and tainted by the need to be reelected. The Trump solution is just elect him and everything will be okay. Bernie's solution is to elect him and there will be a massive public revolution that will implement all of his ideas. Unfortunately, both are dubious, shallow and naive at best.

The point is, it doesn't matter who is elected because the system is rigged. The President elected in 2016, will not be able to achieve their vision for the country or the vision of their many followers. The result will be a lot of frustration and disappointment and more cries of broken government. Carried to the extreme, over time, the electorate will simply become so disenchanted and discouraged with the system that they will feel it is meaningless to vote and participate.

As I pointed out in my very first post – every U.S. Representative & Senator, as well as state and local government officials, lobbyist and political insiders know the reason that there is gridlock in Washington, DC and elsewhere -- they also know how to fix it -- but they won't.

So, we all agree, the systems is broken and rigged

We have to ask the question -- What's really "broken"? You might say it's the crooked politicians. Too much money in politics. Big business and big banks always get their way. Too many lobbyist and special interest, voting rights, etc. Then, you can get down to the more structural problems like I discuss all the time -- gerrymandering, campaign financing, misuse of the filibuster, Senatorial "holds", the “Hastert rule”, unrelated "riders", etc.

But, underlying it all is a simple, basic concept -- majority rule. And all of the items mentioned above are basically designed to prevent or frustrate the concept of majority rule.

So, what's the goal? What's the end game to fixing a broken, rigged government? It's to make the politicians listen and do what the majority wants -- Right? Well, before we go too far we should have a little discussion about -- "Being careful what you wish for."

We have to do a little self examination here. You see, we already have a system that is "rigged" -- where majority doesn't rule. So, what we're seeking is a "majority rule" system. Okay, so what if the majority doesn't agree with you personally? Are you ready to suck it up and live with the "majority rule"?

You see, that's the hard part. . . at any given point in time. . . sometimes, the majority opinion won't necessarily agree with yours. So what are you going to do? Now what's wrong with the system? You want a system that always delivers the result you want? Sorry, that's not the way it works.

So, here's the caveat -- over time, the majority system corrects itself. At least it corrects itself to the majority at that time. Sometimes the majority gets fooled or needs to experience a certain policy or ideology. Then, if the vision does not turn into reality, the majority corrects itself by changing direction. You have to trust the majority system. And, if you can't live with majority rule then you should probably seek another alternative, somewhere else.

Okay, now we know what we want -- a majority rule system; but, wait a minute. A majority of what? A majority of the whole population? -- families? registered voters? persons over 18? All the people, or just those that care? It's worth thinking about, but for discussion sake, I'm going to assume that we are talking about a majority of people over 18 that are concerned or care enough to participate.

It all sounds a little overwhelming. So what's the next step in solving the problem -- getting to a majority rule system. We need a plan. We need some tools. We need solutions.

In a future post I'll make some suggestions on how we get from here to there.

P.S. The concept of majority rule has been discussed and debated forever. A few quotes from Thomas Jefferson are instructive:

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong." --Thomas Jefferson to John Breckenridge, 1800.

(click here for additional TJ quotes on majority rule)

And as Alexander Hamilton pointed out in the Federalist Paper #22:

“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.” [i.e. “minority rule’]

Citizens Speak Out On Broken Government & Citizen Involvement

Some interesting & insightful commentary on a broken government and citizen participation by some mostly interesting & insightful citizens. Thanks to Quora, the website for answering questions. It's a lot to read but if your interested it will open your eyes. I have some answers to the question which I will post later.  

It's an interesting question to ask in light of Bernie Sanders' promises for a citizens' political revolution to achieve free college, universial free health care, $15 dollar minimum wage, breaking up the Big Banks, overturning Citizens' United, higher taxes on the rich; overturning TPP; criminal justice reform, etc.

What will it take, to get citizens involved, and stay involved in the Congressional process once the elections are over?

(click here)

President Obama Participates in a Conversation about the Supreme Court

For the first time in recent memory, Senate Republicans are flatly refusing to consider a Supreme Court nomination because they hope another party will win the next election. It isn't clear whether the Senate will ultimately deny the President's nominee a hearing or a vote for the entire year, so before positions harden, this is a good time for all of us to step back and think about the broader costs of this potential action to our judiciary.

The President talks about filibuster, gerrymandering, broken government and the Supreme Court nominee on April 7, 2016.