BDBoop
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #1
Is the filibuster unconstitutional? - The Washington Post
Very interesting read.
At the core of Bondurants argument is a very simple claim: This isnt 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 wasnt 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.