Discussion in 'Politics' started by BDBoop, May 16, 2012.
Is the filibuster unconstitutional? - The Washington Post
Very interesting read.
It depends on the argument given.
see? really simple.
I depends on who is in power in Congress.
When Democrats are in the Minority, it is the most constitutional and patriotic act that a Senator could engage in.
When the Democrats have a Majority, it is the most despicable, deplorable, unconstitutional undertaking that a Senator could possibly instigate.
Republicans have used the filibuster far more then Democrats.
And they've been trivializing some pretty serious procedures..like impeachment.
I'm not a big fan of the fillibuster. But to suddenly come up with the idea that it is unconstitutional after it's been an accepted part of the institutions for centuries is a bit weird and suspect.
yep..funny how that is
It's just one of the many things that needs to be specified in the Constitution. To live under a 200+ year old business model is nuts.
Like everything else they do, pubs have made it unconstitutional by using it to stop the process. They should be forced to get off their Do Nothing butts instead of being able to "filibuster" from the corner bar or golf course.
I think it has reached the point where it is unconstitutional
It was originally a parlimentary procedure used to extend debate. It has become a defacto change to the Constitution by requiring a 60 percent plurality instead of a 51 percent plurality. It also userps the Vice Presidents tiebreaking vote to where breaking a 50-50 tie is no longer relevant when you need 60 votes just to reach the floor
How does something "become" unconstitutional?
There is an argument to be made that it's a stupid or outdated parliamentary procedure, in which cade the Senate can very well decide to amend its procedures.
Separate names with a comma.