COSTaurus

The Founding Fathers and the Resurrection townhall.com/columnists/jerr… On this special occasion, and as we approach our 250th Anniversary as a nation, I was pleased that Townhall reminded us how important Roger Sherman's "great compromise" was to the founding of the United States. Where I have failed repeatedly on this forum to convince a single US Senator that their disgraceful embrace of the filibuster is a violation of Article V's equal senator suffrage requirement and a disingenuous betrayal of every American, Townhall reminds us that Sherman argued that "big states and little states each should have the same number of senators, while the number of representatives depended on the population of each." As I have said repeatedly (to no avail),the filibuster and other deceitful, unconstitutional, parliamentary rules (e.g., cloture) that diminish the equality (suffrage) of each senator's vote are a clear violation of Article V and the oaths of every senator to support and uphold the Constitution. The only specious, fatuous argument put forth by Republican majority Senators is that if they eliminate the filibuster, what will they do if Democrats ever regain control of the Senate? If there is a more pathetic reason for not doing what the Constitution and solemn duty require, someone please tell me.

The Senate Filibuster violates Article V My query to @grok: If a chamber adopts a rule to desperately disrupt Article V's equal Suffrage requirement, does it diminishes the representation of the people of the states adversely affected by the rule, who should be entitled to challenge it in Court under the 10th Amendment. @grok appears to concur with me. Here's a link to its voluminous response (analyses of court cases, law journals, and other sources): grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D… Imagine the consequences if my argument is correct. – at Cimarron Hills, CO

Constitution 101. The most recent Senate vote (Democrats 47, GOP 50 failure to pass by required margin), and all Senate votes on funding our Government for the next fiscal years,under current rules, violates our Constitution because it diminishes the "suffrage" (political power) of Senators in the majority, contrary to Article V. It probably also "abridges the privileges or immunities" of the majority's constituents in violation of the 14th Amendment, because it dilutes their votes and representation in the Senate. Here's the relevant provisions in the Constitution: Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2 provides: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . ." Article V provides (in pertinent part): . . . . (N)o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Of course, some who favor the present system of undermining representative government, will squeal and holler, that Article V deals strictly with Amending the Constitution and the clause I cited is not relevant, and the Senate has always had unbridled power to make whatever rules it desired. I would counter that a fair, unbiased examination of the creation of our Constitution (Federalist Papers and other historical documents) would leave little doubt that our colonies would have never surrendered their sovereignty to today's schemes of legislative obstruction (i.e., filibuster and super-majority votes) and it is totally disingenuous to suggest so. What say you? Who has the standing and courage to challenge this historic injustice? – at Cimarron Hills, CO