Search by property
From cm2.liecourt.com
This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.
List of results
- Ornstein Filibuster Lie 2 - Workflow + (The framers feared 'the tyranny of the maj … The framers feared 'the tyranny of the majority.'</br>Filibuster proponents often argue that the Constitution’s framers intended to </br>obstruct decisions by simple majorities. In defense of the filibuster, Lewis & Clark Law School professor </br>James Huffman wrote in the Hill that James Madison “would likely think it a brilliant innovation for </br>preventing majority tyranny.” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) wrote in the New York </br>Times in 2019 that the filibuster is “central to the order the Constitution sets forth,” citing Madison’s view </br>that the Senate ought to function as an “additional impediment” and a “complicated check” on the House.</br></br>Ornstein says this is a lie. McConnell is lying.</br>But other than the explicit constitutional requirements for supermajorities, </br>such as to approve treaties, the framers were foursquare for majority votes. </br>Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22 that allowing minorities to overrule </br>the majority would cause “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible </br>compromises of the public good.” Congressional Research Service scholar Walter J. Oleszek has noted:</br> “Overall, the Framers generally favored decision-making by simple majority vote. </br>This view is buttressed by the grant of a vote to the Vice President (Article I, section 3) in </br>those cases where the Senators are ‘equally divided.’” </br>This provision makes clear that the Constitution’s drafters expected</br> that most decisions would be made by majority vote.most decisions would be made by majority vote.)
- Ornstein Filibuster Lie 2 - Workflow + (The framers feared 'the tyranny of the maj … The framers feared 'the tyranny of the majority.'</br>Filibuster proponents often argue that the Constitution’s framers intended to </br>obstruct decisions by simple majorities. In defense of the filibuster, Lewis & Clark Law School professor </br>James Huffman wrote in the Hill that James Madison “would likely think it a brilliant innovation for </br>preventing majority tyranny.” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) wrote in the New York </br>Times in 2019 that the filibuster is “central to the order the Constitution sets forth,” citing Madison’s view </br>that the Senate ought to function as an “additional impediment” and a “complicated check” on the House.</br></br>Ornstein says this is a lie. McConnell is lying.</br>But other than the explicit constitutional requirements for supermajorities, </br>such as to approve treaties, the framers were foursquare for majority votes. </br>Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22 that allowing minorities to overrule </br>the majority would cause “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible </br>compromises of the public good.” Congressional Research Service scholar Walter J. Oleszek has noted:</br> “Overall, the Framers generally favored decision-making by simple majority vote. </br>This view is buttressed by the grant of a vote to the Vice President (Article I, section 3) in </br>those cases where the Senators are ‘equally divided.’” </br>This provision makes clear that the Constitution’s drafters expected</br> that most decisions would be made by majority vote.most decisions would be made by majority vote.)