(Graph: Todd Lindeman; Data: Senate.gov)
The constitution does not, nor would it, detail every permitted action. This is like saying that oral arguments before the Supreme Court are not constitutional, as it’s not written in there.
My bad ...
“Is the filibuster unconstitutional?”
No.
And BTW...the fact that Common Cause opposes them strengthens my support of them.
These questions are never asked when republicans hold majorities.
Generally speaking, anything that makes it harder for the government to accomplish anything should be considered a positive good.
At least Mr. Klein mentioned the Constitution gives each house of Congress the set its own rules: “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
If the liberals want to end the filibuster than all Harry Reid needed to do was to get rid of the rule when the new Congress was seated but he didn’t. For example, House Speaker Reid in 1890 got rid of the rule allowing a minority to have an effective veto over legislation by not “attending” House proceedings and denying the House a quorum.
Interesting that this should become an issue just now. The Left anticipating losing the Senate in November?
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
As the Senate has determined that its rules require 60 votes to gain “cloture” - then the making and enforcing of such a rule is Constitutional.
But amazing that when Democrats hold filibuster power in a Republican dominated Senate - the filibuster rule is enshrined in U.S. law and a necessary check on majority rule; but when Republicans hold filibuster power in a Democrat dominated Senate - it is somehow Unconstitutional 0r at least “extra” Constitutional.
One might think they had bias or something!
No.
The House and Senate may set their rules of operation as a co equal branch with the Supreme Court.
A SCOTUS attempt to review those rules would be unconstitutional and cause for impeachment.
What are the Senate (and the House, for matter) rules for a voting quorum? The reason I ask is, Democrats in both Indiana and Wisconsin—within the past year—have walked out of legislatures to prevent the business of government from moving forward. Should that action too, be considered un-Constitutional?
Oh here we go...now Ezra has been handed Harry Reid’s talking point. These rats see the writing on the wall and it’s curtains for tham in November. So their only path is to try and neuter the effects of being in the minority. Fuggetaboutit...we remember, the “we won” President and Pelosi/Reid years. With disdain. It is going to take years to undo their damage.
“The rest of us were wrong,” he said. “If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rule, because it’s been abused, abused and abused.”
That's pitiful. His tune will change come November when the Senate changes hands by a small majority to the Republicans. Democrats perfected the fillibuster and make it a near constant when Bush tried to appoint SC Justices.
When Republicans control the Senate, the filibuster is an essential tool to preserve Democracy. When Democrats control the Senate, the filibuster is not only “unconstitutional” but and evil tool used to obstruct the will of the people.
Philosophically, I’m not sure I agree with the filibuster. Any legislation must pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President, and stand up to Judicial review. I’m not sure it is right that 41% of the Senate should be able to block any bill, approved by the other 59% of the Senate, a over 50% of the House and the POTUS.
Practically speaking, I love the filibuster because 95% of laws that Democrat congresses try to pass and probably 60% of laws Republican congresses try to pass are bad for the country and/or go beyond the limited powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. From a strictly, practical standpoint, anything that causes fewer Federal laws and programs to be passed, is more often than not, a good thing.
“This isn’t what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.”
What a crock. Firstly, there’s a reason original intent does not control proper constitutional interpretation. It doesn’t matter what they intended, it matters what they wrote. And the Framers let Congress form its own rules, as is perfectly appropriate.
Also, it’s not correct to say that a supermajority is required to pass anything. Laws still pass by simple majority. It’s just that there needs be a supermajority to get there. A petty point, perhaps, but true.
If they’re printing this article, then they must have internals that show a 60+ seat Senate for Conservatives.....
“Is the filibuster unconstitutional?”
My answer: Only when there is a Republican majority.
This is a rule established by the Senate. The Senate has the power to sustain or abolish. the Supreme Court has no dog in this fight. sd