Yep, the Constitution is Grand. But There are Amendments for a Reason. Here's a Proposal. Part 1.

So, in analyzing the debacle in Iraq, where does the list of the mistakes begin? Let's try to hash out a rough index:

First of all, General David Petraeus, the oft- anointed savior of the U.S. venture in Iraq, admits that very little progress has been observed, despite the surge of troops being at their maximum capacity.

The sophomoric Iraqi Parliament has hitherto been unable to agree on the color of the carpets in their chamber, much less come to any sort of accord on meaningful issues like oil wealth redistribution and the repeal of de-Baathification measures enacted at the outset of the invasion.

Casualties amongst all demographics, from civilians to the fledgling Iraqi soldiers, are at their apogee.

In Southern Iraq, Shiite militias, having secured their autonomy from the British earlier in the year, run major oil-producing cities like Basra similar to the old style Chicago political machines.

In the North, a burgeoning territorial dispute between the Kurds and their northern neighbors, the Turks, is threatening to devolve into an internecine war that could further destabilize the "nation" of Iraq.

Shockingly though, the aforementioned are yet still a mere pittance of the litany of problems confronting the embattled "nation" at present.

Given these sobering truths about our failure to succeed in Iraq, it's hardly a surprise that public sentiment here in the United States against the occupation, which gradually built to a fierce crescendo, finally culminated in the last few weeks.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 68% percent of the country does not believe in the direction of the country. Couple that fact, with record low approval rankings for both the President and the Congress (29 and 23 percent, respectively). Throw in the symbolic bete noire that was achieved this week when the number of American soldiers dead ascended over 3,500, and one can easily envision the overlying public sentiment as being one of disgust.

However, the institutions that are supposed to be most attuned to the public in a representative democracy, the House of Representatives and Senate, have heard not a mere single utterance from their membership concerning the situation in Iraq for nearly a month. The right and honorable Senators have instead spent their time focusing on inconsequential, non binding endeavors like a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and bills that would offer enormous subsidies to companies who intend to invest in coal as an energy source of the future. (Way to stay true to the party platform vis a vis the environment with that decision, Senator Reid.)

What makes this dereliction of Senatorial duty all the more surprising and reprehensible is that it occurs with the Democratic party in the majority, albeit a minuscule one. The public had, more or less, come to expect the rampant cronyism and lack of oversight when the Republicans were in power. It's no surprise then that the Democrats mounted a successful campaign as the alternative to that lack of accountability on Iraq, supposedly endemic to the GOP, during the 2006 mid-terms. Yet, despite all the promises to offer a diversion from the President's Iraq policy, inertia and entropy have reigned supreme in the higher chamber since the new majority assumed power in January.

The question that thus arises is: who is the foremost culprit responsible for the stagnancy that has pervaded the Senate in recent weeks? As is typical with problems arising in Washington, most principals are denying their culpability through one side of their mouth while pointing an accusatory finger at their colleagues across the aisle. However, in a matter of this importance, it is imperative that appropriate blame be meted out, particularly given the embarrassing inverse relationship between increasing public furor over the war and the decrease in tangible legislation emanating from the Senate.

As for endeavoring to identify the guilty party, the usual suspects predictably come to mind at first thought. Of course, the President himself deserves a considerable amount of ignominy in this matter. His petulant refusal to even negotiate with House leaders on the even the possibility of the inclusion of time lines to withdraw troops within the bill, despite objections from members of his own party, essentially neutered the changes in the bill, and thereby removed its effectiveness. Similarly, the stalling tactics of Senate GOP leaders McConnell and Lott eventually reduced the debate to an argument over procedural, not substantive matters with regards to Iraq. In the same vein, the Democrats are equally responsible, largely because of their total emasculation at the hands of the President during the negotiations prior to ratification of the bill, for the pathetic "compromise" legislation that ultimately materialized from the Senate.

Despite this, though the actions of the aforementioned individuals have served as a microcosm for the lack of a new approach per Iraq on Capitol Hill, they will not be served to history as the most grievous offenders. Even the President, whose complete refusal to acknowledge reality on the ground in Iraq, thereby committing more soldiers to a pointless death day by day, can be solely highlighted as the reason the recent Iraq legislation flamed out so miserably. In actuality, no single individual, no matter how deserving of opprobrium their actions or all-encompassing be their political clout, is responsible for the indolence that has consumed the Senate in recent weeks.

The responsibility for inaction thus lies with an entity that is far more resilient and insidious than any sole individual could ever be. Trust me, you will be surprised. The main enemy of progress are the rules and procedures, as ascribed by the Founding Fathers, of the U.S. Senate. Despite overwhelming sentiment in favor of a concerted detour from President Bush's Iraq policy, the structural parameters of Senate business, as instituted by Madison and his fellow Constitutional architects, stood unscathed against the assault of the America people.

In a sense, in ignoring the will of the people with the paucity of legislation on Iraq, the Senate worked exactly as the framers' originally envisioned. Realizing that chaos may ensue in the House, given the short terms and huge size, the Senate was created as a moderating counter-weight. Emanating from this idea was the extensive six-year term, the mandate demanding a two-thirds majority to override a veto, and most importantly, the staggering of Senatorial elections, which ensured only a third would be up for re-election each cycle. As Robert Caro eloquently theorized in his landmark third volume on Lyndon Johnson's, which centered on his tenure in the Senate, the framers sincerely believed that this body was meant to "serve as a bulwark against both overreaching power of the executive branch and the zeal of the populace as a whole."

As for protecting against the danger synonymous with the former, the Senate has undoubtedly performed meritorious work. At the height of the New Deal's popularity, it single handedly preserved the autonomy and legitimacy of the Judiciary when, after weeks of pensive debate and brilliant oratory, it rejected FDR's plan to reshuffle the Supreme Court at his whim. In the same vein, the Senate likely diffused the establishment of a one-party government when it nullified Andrew Jackson's plan to dismiss legitimate politicians based on their political affiliation a mere 30 years republic.

More often than not though, the Senate has served the second purpose of the framers: to curtail the popular sentiment of the country. Often times, as prescribed by the infrastructure of the Constitution, this institution was the last bastion against reform, social justice and egalitarianism. To every one's surprise, save perhaps Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and their ilk, the Senate nevertheless stood firm against the seemingly unstoppable forces for change, largely because of the aforementioned procedures governing the passage of legislation in this body.

The United States, believed to be the most progressive nation on Earth insofar as embodying universal values of human rights, still employed children in heinous conditions as late as 1915. An entry race, African-Americans, were systematically disenfranchised and harassed until the late 1960's, despite being emancipated nearly a century before. Yet, for nearly 100 years, they had little recourse, given the Senate's ability to dominate the legislative agenda in Washington. Time and time again, the House, buoyed by the will of their constituents passed legislation designed to enhance human rights, fairness and transparency in our society, only to be stymied by the higher chamber.

Furthermore, Senators, in brazenly dismissing innumerable bills, often times attempt to absolve themselves of blame by citing the complicated, onerous parliamentary procedures that govern Senate debate. The worst part: this, while seeming on the surface absurd, is a completely legitimate argument

Case in point: Freshman Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) expressed both the collective frustration over the gridlock on Iraq, and the hegemony of Senate rules and procedures when she offered this assessment, courtesy of the Times, last week:

“I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, ‘Well, we need 60 votes,’ she said. “People are dying over there, so that isn’t always helpful.”

Her candid statement seems to epitomize how nonsensical the Senate has become with respect to Iraq. Instead of making decisions based on body counts, assessments from commanders on the field, or the opinions of our allies, we are held hostage by the anachronistic rules of the Senate. For more than 200 years, the Founders have succeeded, through the Senate's structural design, to thwart the will of the public. Through hell and high water, the institution has held firm, often to the countries distinct detriment.

It's finally time to modify these asinine, counter-productive rules. In an increasing complex, nuanced world, the need for flexibility, responsiveness and alacrity in legislation is paramount to honoring the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Those 3,500 Americans who have perished in Iraq at least deserve an honest debate, based on the issues, not the instructions of the Senate parliamentarian, don't they?

Without amending the Senate rules, they will never get it. And we will be ever the worse as a result.

Coming up next week: Part 2-Fixing the Senate: A Comprehensive Blueprint