Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 42 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 3/10/19

The Status of HR1- The Revolt of The Senate

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   2 comments
Message Harold Novikoff
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)

Mitch McConnell
Mitch McConnell
(Image by Gage Skidmore)
  Details   DMCA

I read that HR1, the crucial Voting Rights Reform Bill passed by the House of Representatives, is dead on arrival in the Senate. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, refuses to bring up the bill for a vote - not that we expect that reactionary body to pass their version of the bill or both houses of Congress to over-ride the president's veto.

Most troubling are the actions of McConnell, reminding us of another crucial situation when he refused to bring up for approval President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for the Supreme Court. In the present case, one person, exercising his privilege based upon the internal rules of organization of the senate, and placing loyalty to his party before his responsibilities to the American people, has aborted the essential power and duty granted by our constitution for congress to pass laws for the benefit of all the people. In the Garland case, McConnell clearly defied the constitutional powers of the president to appoint justices. Since when do the Senate's internal rules of organization take precedence over the articles of the constitution? Those rules merely define the operating procedures of the senate, but do not grant the authority to refuse its duties under the constitution.

This obvious corruption of power is throwing a monkey wrench into the functioning of our government and demands our full and immediate attention to resolve the issue. McConnell's actions are equivalent to overturning the constitution to which he has sworn an oath of loyalty. He should be brought to justice.

Item #2:

A major emphasis of HR1 is to diminish the influence of money in the election process. Considering the long complicated relationship of money in politics, It is not likely that this measure alone will make a significant difference. One additional approach to equalizing the influence of money in elections would be to re-write the responsibilities of broadcast media under their FCC charter, requiring them to contribute a substantial amount of free air time for political debate. Otherwise, the government should require that a portion of political contributions be set aside to pay for political debate. The amount of political debate should be greatly expanded to be the main focus of campaigning, thus countering the influence of partisan political advertising.

Well Said 2   Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Harold Novikoff Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Veteran, retired from several occupations (school teacher, technical writer, energy conservation business, etc.) long-time Sierra Club member

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Wild Fires

The Motive Behind Global-Warming Denial

Is Democracy Obsolete?

High Crime in the U.S. Senate

Dark Matters: The Science/Industrial Complex

Tulsi on Impeachment

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend