Must we let the tail wag the dog?
February 15th, 2009 at 01:28pm Pat Cunningham
There’s something fundamentally wrong, it seems to me, with the rule that allows a minority of lawmakers to block legislation in the Senate by means of a filibuster.
There’s no provision for the filibuster in the Constitution, nor is it allowed in the House of Representatives. Moreover, it wasn’t a common practice until fairly recently. But we’ve reached the point where it takes 60 votes in a body of 100 members to get anything of significance passed (especially since the Republicans lost majority status two years ago).
Indeed, the minority doesn’t even have to wage a real filibuster these days. It’s just a matter of invoking the threat of one, and suddenly the principle of majority-rule is voided.
There’s more on the matter HERE.
FOOTNOTE: In the 1991-92 legislative session, in which the Republicans were in the minority, there were twice as many filibusters as in the entire 19th century.
POSTSCRIPT: THIS GUY says repeal of the filibuster is long overdue.
UPDATE: The anti-filibuster movement is GAINING STEAM.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
15 Comments Add your own
1. Pat Cunningham | February 15th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
David: Lots of conservative papers also are in financial trouble. It all has to do with huge changes in the media prompted by the rise of the Internet. The Democratic Southern senators to which you refer in your link are from bygone days before the Republican Party became dominant in the South. But you probably wouldn’t know about that.
2. snuss | February 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Back to the subject: The 60-vote majority is part of the “checks and balances” in our political system, designed to keep the minority from being abused, or just ignored, by the majority. In some ways, it is similar to the use of the Electoral College, in Presidential elections.
3. Pat Cunningham | February 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
One more thing, David Johnson: It might interest you to know that News Corp., the media company that owns such conservative-leaning news shops as Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, lost $6.4 billion in just the last quarter.
4. Pat Cunningham | February 15th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
snuss: The filibuster is NOT part of the “checks and balances” enshrined by the Founding Fathers. There’s nothing about it in the Constitution. Some Republicans threatened to repeal it a few years ago to prevent the Democratic minority from blocking certain judicial nominations. They should have made good on the threat.
5. snuss | February 15th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
As David A. Crockett of Trinity University in San Antonio has explained, the legislative filibuster makes perfect sense. Article 1 of the Constitution gives each house of Congress the power to determine its own rules. Senate Rule XXII establishes the necessity of 60 votes to close off debate. With this rule, the Senate has chosen to allow 40-plus percent of its members to block legislative action, out of respect for the view that delaying, even preventing, hasty action, or action that has only the support of a narrow majority, can be a good thing. As Crockett puts it, “Congress is the active agent in lawmaking, and if it wants to make that process more difficult, it can.” One might add that legislative filibusters can often be overcome by offering the minority compromises–revising the underlying legislation with amendments and the like.
Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/551vzoao.asp
SO, it is STILL a part of the “checks and balances” system, NONE of which is noted in the Constitution. I also said nothing about the Founding Fathers authoring it.
6. Craig Knauss | February 15th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
snuss,
Since you are such a historian, you therefore know the the purpose of the Electoral College was to isolate the election of the president from the riffraff and to move it to a more “learned” body. Unfortunately, the way it was instituted left a lot to be desired. In an effort to protect minority states, the Electoral College walked all over the principle of “one man, one vote”. And the “learned body” are just political hacks.
7. snuss | February 16th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Re: The Electorial College
It was designed to make States with small populations more equal to States with large populations, in Presidential elections.
We have never been a true democracy (“one man, one vote”, or majority rule).
We are a Representative Republic., which protects the rights of the minority with a system of “checks and balances”.
8. Mike Carroll | February 16th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Pat-The Constitutional right to filibuster can be found in the “emanations and penumbras” section of the document.
I just love it when liberals become strict constructionists.
9. DingDong | February 16th, 2009 at 8:12 am
David did you notice that Pat did not comment about or try to defend his assumption about majority rule in the Senate. He then went to the side comment you made, which he actually had some standing.
There are plenty of things that government does that are not in the constitution but I don’t here Pat complaining about those. There are plenty of things the legislature does that is not in the constitution. Were you complaining when the GOP had a slight majority?
10. Pat Cunningham | February 16th, 2009 at 8:34 am
DingDong: I understand that majoritarianism doesn’t pertain to every aspect of government in America. The very makeup of the Senate, where the states with little population have as much representation as those with great population, is a departure from the principle of majority rule. I also recognize that the Constitution protects minorities from certain impulses of the majority. My point was, and is, that the filibuster is unfair. It amounts to the tail wagging the dog. There are arguments to be made in favor of the filibuster, but I think they are outweighed by those against it. The aforementioned makeup of the Senate should be benefit enough to the minority without the added advantage of filibuster power.
As for your last sentence about whether I felt this way when the Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, I think I made myself clear on that point in Comment No. 5 (above), which you either didn’t read or didn’t understand.
11. Pat Cunningham | February 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Mike Carroll: I’m not playing the strict-constructionist card here. I realize that the Constitution neither prescribes nor prohibits the filibuster. I’m just saying it’s unfair (for reasons I mentioned in Comment No. 13).
12. DingDong | February 16th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Pat: The reasoning of comment #5, I discount that comment. All your saying is that if the republicans had done that then we could have had all the power now and the Democrats would not look like the bad guys.
13. Pat Cunningham | February 16th, 2009 at 10:07 am
DingDong: That makes no sense at all. I said in Comment No. 5 that the Republicans should have gotten rid of the filibuster when they threatened to. I have no idea what you’re trying to say in your second sentence.
14. Mike Carroll | February 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Pat-I don’t think its fair either and I hated it during W’s years. I have recently become more fond of the procedure however.
15. DingDong | February 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Pat: I am questioning your motives, I don’t think you would be saying the same thing if the Republicans still had a majority. You just want the Republicans to be the bad guys and had already done it for the Democrats.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed