Is the Filibuster Unconstitutional?

[carlfense]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html#pagebreak

 

Interesting history here.

[Mavric]

Interesting read. A couple things I noticed:

 

upsets the Great Compromise’s carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.

I guess I don't quite follow his logic on this one. I could see where a filibuster rule in the House would meet this criteria but I don't see how it makes any difference on the size of states in the Senate where they're all equal. It would equally affect either, depending on what was being debated. Perhaps someone can help me out on that.

 

 

This isn’t what the Founders intended

A loaded statement if there ever was one. I would be very open to reconsidering a lot of things closer to how the founders intended. Something tells me that argument will be narrowly confined to this topic.

 

 

On Thursday, Reid, who has traditionally been a defender of the filibuster, took to the Senate floor to

apologize

to all the reformers he had stymied over the years

Color me skeptical. Not that I'm trying to pick on Reid but it seems like those in favor of the rule and those opposed to it swings directly proportional to where the majority lands.

[carlfense]

This isn’t what the Founders intended

 

A loaded statement if there ever was one. I would be very open to reconsidering a lot of things closer to how the founders intended. Something tells me that argument will be narrowly confined to this topic.

There is a little more context there:

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.

 

I think it's a moot point. There are stronger arguments to be made against the filibuster than original intent.

 

My reason for posting it was that I found it fascinating that an oversight from hundreds of years ago can dominate politics in the present day. Amazing.

[carlfense]

On Thursday, Reid, who has traditionally been a defender of the filibuster, took to the Senate floor to

apologize

to all the reformers he had stymied over the years

 

Color me skeptical. Not that I'm trying to pick on Reid but it seems like those in favor of the rule and those opposed to it swings directly proportional to where the majority lands.

No doubt.

[ZRod]

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."

Found this quote pretty interesting and foretelling.

[Mavric]

This isn’t what the Founders intended

A loaded statement if there ever was one. I would be very open to reconsidering a lot of things closer to how the founders intended. Something tells me that argument will be narrowly confined to this topic.

There is a little more context there:

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.

I think it's a moot point. There are stronger arguments to be made against the filibuster than original intent.

 

My reason for posting it was that I found it fascinating that an oversight from hundreds of years ago can dominate politics in the present day. Amazing.

I agree with you - there are much better arguments to make the case. But that isn't what they said. They said that was the "core" of the "argument". If that is going to be the "core" of this argument, I think it should be the "core" of others as well.