Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wimpycat
I think the advice and consent point is strongest with the disenfranchisement argument.

With legislation, it is reasonable to extend debate if enough of a minority feel that they didn't have sufficient time to make their case. With advice and consent, the President is asking the Senate for their advice and consent. It is unconstitutional for a Senator from New York to prevent a Senator from Texas from advising the President, and then consenting or withholding consent.

That is the crux of the unconstitutional filibuster -- a minority of Senators is preventing other Senators from advising the President.

-PJ

195 posted on 11/14/2003 5:15:49 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]


To: Political Junkie Too
Exactly. I don't know much about this stuff, but Lindsey Graham has a way of explaining things so even I can understand it.
197 posted on 11/14/2003 5:21:55 PM PST by wimpycat ("I'm mean, but I make up for it by bein' real healthy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson