"Trying to end revisionist history and setting the record straight!" ...
HISTORYTEACHER: Calling out Senator Byrd historyteacher

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Calling out Senator Byrd

I was absolutely disgusted by Senator Byrd (Democrat from West Virginia) and his remarks made on the Senate Floor.

"We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men," Byrd said. "But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends."

Byrd then quoted historian Alan Bullock, saying Hitler "turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."

Byrd added, "That is what the nuclear option seeks to do."

Now, lets put all of this in context.

First of all, the Senate is not trying to get rid of the filibuster. The Senate Republicans are trying to follow the Constitution. The role of the Senate according to Article II Section 2 is as follows:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Now, Let me clarify what this means. It is the Senates job to advise and give consent. How does the Senate do this? By voting on the nominations. If the Senate votes nay then the nomination does not pass. If the Senate votes Yay then the nomination passes. IF THERE IS NO VOTE THE SENATE IS NOT PERFORMING ITS DUTIES AS ORDERED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Now, what are the republicans doing? They are simply trying to force a vote, thats all. They are trying to do their job. They are not trying to get rid of the filibuster. The Republicans know that someday they will be in the minority again. However, the President has a right to have his nominations put to a vote. NO JUDICIAL NOMINATION HAS EVER BEEN FILIBUSTERED UNTIL 2 YEARS AGO.

Now, I believe Senator Byrd was WAY out of line. Anyone who uses Hitler, in my opinion, strengthen there side of a case really needs to look at how strong there case is. No American politician, nomatter how much you disagree with them should ever have to be compared to Hitler. Senator Byrd deserves to lose all credibility.


At 6:25 AM, Blogger Scriptor said...

They may be doing there job. But it is rarely good when one side uses its majority to do whatever it wants in complete disregard to the minority.

At 9:50 AM, Blogger The Sovereign Editor said...

Godwin's Law should be revived and applied to real world discussions as well as the internet. If old 'Sheets' Byrd has to compare his opponents to Hitler, then the discussion is over. Other side wins. Why? If Byrd's opponent's actions are bad enough to be comparable to Hitler, the comparison isn't necessary. The actions speak for themselves. That Sheets has to invoke Hitler and the Nazis indicates that he does not have a strong rational basis for his argument (or he lacks the ability to form a logical argument).

Hitler was a vegetarian and he was anti-smoking. Can we therefore assume that people who are vegetarians and don't smoke will favor sending Jews to death camps if elected? Of course not. Hitler and Nazis carry such horrible connotations with them that to invoke them in an argument just is not helpful. Even if the analogy is actually valid, you will not reach your opponents because they will stop listening to you the moment you compare them to Nazis. If Sheets were more discerning, he ought to have realized this by now. That he hasn't makes me wonder how he keeps getting reelected. In his speech, he commits at least one causal fallacy, one categorical fallacy, one inductive fallacy, and several others. It's frankly amazing that anyone can believe anything he says (unless they assume it's not on purpose).

At 7:30 AM, Anonymous Louis said...

Two different people who have a thing or two in common may still be two very different personalities.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Get Firefox!