A bit of historical perspective

The authors of the Constitution, presuming that the members of Congress would be honorable men, left the particulars of how the chambers would function to the membership. Neither domination by political parties nor factions were anticipated to have determinative input.

Indeed, while the ceremonial function of Senate sessions were assigned to a member of the executive branch, the VP, the House was/is free to select a Speaker who has not even been elected as a member.
Unfortunately, individuals having ceremonial duties but no powers seems impossible for modern men to understand. And so we have one man in the Senate, Tuberville, gumming up the works by holding up appointments because that is what Senate-adopted rules let him do. Tuberville could not be obstructive if the other Senators were not supportive of such arbitrary power grabs.
Moreover, Tuberville is not an outlier. The whole super-majority rule for some appointments is a perversion of the principle of probity, the presumption of good from which the presumption of innocence flows.
Partisan litmus tests are perverse. When they are in effect, we can expect that applicants will be unqualified.


Also, there was no problem is long as the category “people” was made up exclusively of white property owning men. While it was not unusual in the 18th and 19th century for women to inherit property, it was not bruited about and male managers or bankers typically managed estates. Indeed, as late as the 1940s, the inheritance of assets by females was put in permanent bankers’ trust. In loco parentis kept everything orderly. Letting women access the ballot box had no significant effect since most women followed the lead of the male head of household. Ergo, while it was expected that the equal pay law of 1963 would only affect the small number of female government employees, the civil rights legislation of the ’70s was also expected to have much effect. Impact on voting was lessened by reducing the age of eligibility to 18, to point at which emancipation cut the strings of paternal control. What women might want was not much considered beyond labor-saving household appliances. Women demanding financial equality came as a surprise, largely because talk about money was taboo in polite society. Now money is no longer taboo, but its real worthlessness cannot be revealed.