Is the Filibuster Unconstitutional

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

Exactly. So if is being used as an impediment, then it needs to go. And it IS being used as such. By both sides. Therefore.
 
It comes down to the people have to say enough is enough

Congress has decided that it will no longer function. Both sides are more concerned with their political parties than in doing the job they were sworn to do. The filibuster is the latest tool Congress is using tie itself into knots. It needs to be taken away from them
 
OK, bookmark this thread.

When the GOP takes over the Senate, it will be Obama and the Super-PAC's all over again.

The First Democrat filibuster, all these folks will change their tune lickity-split.

And what will we hear?

"But...but...but, the Republicans did it...so it's OK now."
 
OK, bookmark this thread.

When the GOP takes over the Senate, it will be Obama and the Super-PAC's all over again.

The First Democrat filibuster, all these folks will change their tune lickity-split.

And what will we hear?

"But...but...but, the Republicans did it...so it's OK now."

I expect the Republicans to take the Senate in 2013 but still think the filibuster must go. Congress has self inflicted a system that prevents them from functioning. The filibuster is part of the problem.

The Senate is a non-functioning body right now
 
I don't have a problem with a filibuster, if it's actually done.

The fact that the threat of a filibuster is enough to kill a bill is bullshit.

If a rep feels strongly enough about a filibuster, they should be forced to actually filibuster it - stand and talk nonstop for hours.
 
OK, bookmark this thread.

When the GOP takes over the Senate, it will be Obama and the Super-PAC's all over again.

The First Democrat filibuster, all these folks will change their tune lickity-split.

And what will we hear?

"But...but...but, the Republicans did it...so it's OK now."

I expect the Republicans to take the Senate in 2013 but still think the filibuster must go. Congress has self inflicted a system that prevents them from functioning. The filibuster is part of the problem.

The Senate is a non-functioning body right now

I may have agreed with you before the healthcare fiasco...but now I say the filibuster is vital to the Senate process, regardless who is in power.
 
How could it be unconstitutional?

The Senate is authorized to make its own rules. Article I,
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

. . . .

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . . .

The Senate created its own parliamentary rule of proceedings: and it involves a filibuster.

It might be unwise. It might be less "democratic" than some folks like.

But it is an explicitly granted power of that house under the very TERMS of the Constitution. I would suggest, therefore, that it cannot be "unconstitutional," by definition.
 
Last edited:
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.

The Constitution clearly states that each House of Congress is free to create their own rules n how they work. As such the Filibuster is simply not a factor in a claim of Unconstitutional. It is a procedural rule that the Senate can change any time it feels like.

If the Democrats really thought the filibuster were bad they would change it, the reason they don't is because they may e the minority party in the next election and then could not change it back.

No Court would hear a case on the legality or constitutional position of procedures that are by Definition Constitutional .

All it takes to amend the Senate rules is a vote by the Majority party.
 
If the Democrats really thought the filibuster were bad they would change it, the reason they don't is because they may be the minority party in the next election and then could not change it back.
The sound you hear is that of the hammer hitting the nail square on the head.

The only time liberals care about the fillibusters is when they don't have enough votes to break one.
 
It's like when some RUBE complains that the census is effectively an unconstitutional violation of the Constitution's guarantee to privacy.

There is no provision in the Constitution granting a "right" to privacy

BUT

there is a Constitutional provision mandating that a census be taken.
 
The Constitution clearly states that each House of Congress is free to create their own rules n how they work. As such the Filibuster is simply not a factor in a claim of Unconstitutional. It is a procedural rule that the Senate can change any time it feels like.

If the Democrats really thought the filibuster were bad they would change it, the reason they don't is because they may e the minority party in the next election and then could not change it back.

No Court would hear a case on the legality or constitutional position of procedures that are by Definition Constitutional .

All it takes to amend the Senate rules is a vote by the Majority party.

That is the winner! And that is why it doesn't change. It is used by both parties to take blame away.
 
I find it nothing less than appalling that a bunch of illegal immigrants have ANY even imagined right of access to OUR Courts for internal governmental matters.

I know some Congress-critters are also nominal plaintiffs.

But that doesn't excuse immigrants filing suit of this kind.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top