Reforming the Congress

I disagree with Hugh Hewitt’s prescription, published in his op-ed in the Washington Post, for reforming the Senate:

What the Senate needs is an overhaul of its rules, one that preserves the rights of the minority in some cases — key legislation, for example, and perhaps appointments to the Supreme Court — while also reflecting the speed at which the world moves today. Simple majorities on appropriations and time limits on debate over minor nominees are two obvious reforms. They could be traded for agreement on the high court vacancies, formalizing the modern precedent established by McConnell of no nominations in an election year but consideration and votes on nominees from the year prior such as Anthony M. Kennedy. The same deal could also include changes to the “Byrd Rule,” which gives the Senate parliamentarian broad sway over what is allowed under budget reconciliation — an extraconstitutional expansion of the parliamentarian’s powers that makes sense only under a Cubist understanding of how the Senate is supposed to operate.

since I don’t believe those measures would actually do much or at least not what was needed. I think we need a single-subject Constitutional amendment. No more omnibus or “comprehensive” bills. It’s too easy to hide things in them and, inevitably, no one really knows what’s in them.