Is the Filibuster Unconstitutional

BDBoop

Platinum Member
Jul 20, 2011
35,384
5,458
668
Don't harsh my zen, Jen!
Is the filibuster unconstitutional? - The Washington Post

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: 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.
In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Very interesting read.
 
Is the filibuster unconstitutional? - The Washington Post

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: 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.
In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Very interesting read.

It depends on the argument given.

see? really simple.

:cool:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

yep..funny how that is
 
Is the filibuster unconstitutional? - The Washington Post

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: 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.
In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Very interesting read.

Yes.

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
 
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.
 
Is the filibuster unconstitutional? - The Washington Post

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: 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.
In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Very interesting read.

Nothing interesting come out of the WaPo. just dirt and shit stirring.
 
Is the filibuster unconstitutional? - The Washington Post

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: 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.
In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

In the end, the Constitution prescribed six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote: impeaching the president, expelling members, overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order, ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution. And as Bondurant writes, “The Framers were aware of the established rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and that by adopting these six exceptions to the principle of majority rule, they were excluding other exceptions.” By contrast, in the Bill of Rights, the Founders were careful to state that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Very interesting read.

Nothing interesting come out of the WaPo. just dirt and shit stirring.
It's all part of Obama's and the Statist "Hope and Change"...

Rewriting history, The Constitution to reflect thier views and trying to convince the dumbmasses how unfair our system is, and always has been...and how eeevil the Founders were.
 
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.

I think it became unconstitutional when it evolved from a little used parliamentary procedure involving "Mr Smith goes to Washington" filibuster speeches to a now automatic 60 vote majority to pass legislation in the Senate
 
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.

no it's not. people have asked the courts to rule on constitutionality of Congressional rules before,

American History: D-
 
Beginning with the Reagan Revolution, Republicans have abused the rules of both houses of Congress. It became winning at all costs, party over country, compromise as evil. The founders of this nation built the USA on compromise.

Shame on the GOP of Reagan Revolution
 
I may not like it or agree with it, no matter the affiliation of the ones doing it... but I do not see where it is 'unconstitutional'

the nitwit wing of the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB gets lost when absent talking points on American History.

Some analysts have questioned the constitutionality of the self-executing rule.[4] Some lawyers and public advocacy groups cite the 1998 Supreme Court case Clinton v. City of New York relating to the line item veto,[9] and the 1983 case Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1983) relating to the legislative veto to support these claims.[5][10] Others point to a 2006 case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia regarding the Deficit Reduction Act, which, in part, ruled in favor of the self-executing provision.[4][11] That ruling was upheld on appeal in 2007, but never argued before the Supreme Court.[12]

Self-executing rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I may not like it or agree with it, no matter the affiliation of the ones doing it... but I do not see where it is 'unconstitutional'

In practice, it appears to sidestep the constitutional requirement for a majority vote in the Senate. The Constitution set standards for a super majority to be required for amendments and impeachment. It seems the intent was to only require a super majority in major, significant events.
The use of filibuster to impose a super majority seems to circumvent the constitution

The courts have ruled in the past where dogma has conflicted with constitutional law
 
Bring it on. Let's pursue a Consitutional Amendment to have it removed. If it stays, it is the will of the People. I would like to see it go away. Like the current President says, Elections have consequences. If the Minority Party has issues with it, then they need to sell the American People on ideas and then become a new majority.
 
Bring it on. Let's pursue a Consitutional Amendment to have it removed. If it stays, it is the will of the People. I would like to see it go away. Like the current President says, Elections have consequences. If the Minority Party has issues with it, then they need to sell the American People on ideas and then become a new majority.

constitutional amendment? do you know what it takes to get through that process?

:mad:


stfu or pay attention
 

Forum List

Back
Top