Tradition versus Law

I came across an article on Senate rules, and how they could be changed. The article covers quite about of historical information about the internal rules of the Senate, and how they have changed over time. It's interesting to consider how rules about how the Senate conduct business, which aren't subject to much public debate, affect us all. I'm a big fan of the idea of letting bills and nominees come up for a vote. It's not that I really want the slim majority party to run wild, but rather I want to have a voting record to base my vote on. With rules and practices that prevent bills and nominees from coming to a public vote, we have less information to work with when it's time to vote. How can you say "vote for candidate XYZ, they successfully prevented a vote from taking place by invoking an esoteric Senate rule."

It's also interesting to consider from an organizational perspective how practices whether written or not can shape the institution's ability to perform its role. I would think any large institution, which isn't a strict dictatorship, faces this same issue in one way or another.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION TO CHANGE SENATE RULES AND PROCEDURES: A MAJORITARIAN MEANS TO OVERCOME THE FILIBUSTER

Don't get me wrong, thinking that I want 51 republican senators to control the Senate and run rough shod over the minority. I simply want visibility into the process. The rules and machinations which prevent votes on issues cover up the actual records of elected officials. In regards to the tyranny of the majority, I would be quite pleased if laws, especially those expanding the scope of the federal government, had to be passed by a 2/3 majority. Then no one party could control anything. That would require a constitutional change, of course.

[Link Courtesy of Powerline]