Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
That's the point. The Constitution has things to say about what happens when two legislative chambers don't agree or when two co-equal branches of government don't agree (less than you'd think, but it speaks on those questions). It even has things to say about when co-equal sovereigns don't agree.You clearly have more expertise in this area than I, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say what we're talking about here.Then change the Constitution. There are tons of counter majoritarian measures in the Constitution (like the asinine Electoral College). This isn't one of them.Because it's crap. If 100% of the people vote for one party, then sure, let's "respect their wishes". When it's barely over 50%, they shouldn't have 100% say on everything.Why not? If the same party wins the majority of the votes for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the people? And if winning elections isn't a prerequisite to getting effective veto power over legislation and appointments and whatnot, why not give the Libertarians and Socialists and the Green Party the same power we give the other minority party?It shouldn't be just 1 party making decisions. God forbid we have any actual collaboration in our federal government.
It's just funny to see Republicans suddenly care about minorities.
It has nothing to say about what happens when a minority in any one legislative body doesn't like the direction the majority is moving in. Because none of those great Freedom Loving Founders had the slightest inkling that the minority should be able to gum up the works for the majority. The Constitution says that the Senate must advise and consent to judicial nominations. It doesn't say that the minority in the Senate must consent.