Filibuster Fallacy

NRO ^ | May 06, 2005 | Peter Augustine Lawler

[neverdem]

	E-mail Author Send to a Friend <% printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Print Version

May 06, 2005, 8:06 a.m.

Filibuster Fallacy
David Brooks distorts the debate.

By Peter Augustine Lawler

David Brooks, the most conservative columnist for the New York Times, increasingly styles himself a statesmanlike referee between the claims of our evangelicals and our secular humanists. He can't be accused of aiming low: He models his statesmanship on Lincoln's. In his May 5 column, he presents our greatest president as "our guide and navigator. Lincoln had enough firm conviction to lead a great moral crusade, but his zeal was tempered by doubt, and his governing style was dispassionate." Lincoln in his time — like Brooks in his — "knew that the country needed the evangelicals' moral rigor to counteract the forces of selfishness and subjectivism, but he could never actually be an evangelical himself." The mean between evangelical enthusiasm and amoral secularist relativism is the prudence of Lincoln and Brooks. And the only truths those statesmen know to be reliable are "those contained in the Declaration of Independence: that human beings are endowed with inalienable rights." This American creed is the only creed that should guide us.

Lincoln, Brooks observes, "was always trying to slow down his evangelical allies." Lincoln and the evangelicals believed fervently in the same "cause," but the sneaky Brooks makes the cause seem both multifaceted and vague. Their cause, most of all, was the eradication of slavery from America. Many of the evangelicals were abolitionists, and Lincoln was not. Lincoln opposed abolitionism before the Civil War because he believed it was unconstitutional; the Constitution only opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories. Abolitionism was a revolutionary principle, and it could finally only be justified by Lincoln after civil war had begun. Brooks doesn't let us see clearly or dwell upon the fact that while the abolitionist evangelicals may well have been imprudent, they were clearly to the left of Lincoln and on the right side of history on the slavery issue. Brooks only alludes to this best example for his otherwise vague conclusion that "the evangelical tradition is deeply consistent with the American creed." The abolitionist evangelicals, in their enthusiasm, thought the principles of the Declaration should trump even the Constitution.

That example also shows us that Lincoln and Brooks are right to add that "evangelical causes can overflow the banks defined by our constitutional documents." The abolitionist evangelicals were at war with what our Constitutional actually said.

Brooks then goes on to compare their abolitionist enthusiasm with "the social conservatives' attempt to end the judicial filibuster." But doing away with the filibuster won't produce a civil war. The filibuster isn't in the Constitution or any of our constitutional documents. It is merely part of the way the Senate regulates itself and has no constitutional or founding status at all.

Clearly the constitutional principle that governs the two houses of Congress is majority rule. The two houses are supposed to check each other, and in turn be checked by the other two branches of government. There's no constitutional foundation for the Senate's perversely building yet another counter-majoritarian check into its internal structure. In truth, there's always been something vaguely but insistently unconstitutional about the filibuster. Liberals used to know this quite well back in the days when it was understood to be a perverse mechanism used by Southern racists to block civil-rights legislation favored by most members of Congress and most Americans. What did Martin Luther King Jr., another authority appealed to by Brooks, think about the filibuster?

I'm not taking a stand on whether or when Senate Republicans should compromise on the filibuster issue. I'm merely saying that their threat to end it is not an example of unbridled evangelical enthusiasm comparable to abolitionism. Think about how the clever Brooks is trying to structure "mainstream" American opinion here. Don't be seduced!

— Peter Augustine Lawler is Dana Professor of Government at Berry College. He is author of Aliens in America: The Strange Truth About Our Souls.

	http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lawler200505060806.asp

[neverdem]

"the Constitution only opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories."

How did this get past NRO editors? That's the Missouri Compromise. While I agree with the author's sentiments, getting the facts wrong undermines your argument. Sheesh, the Constitution's main flaw was that it allowed counting a slave as three fifths of a person for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives. Otherwise, slavery was ignored so that the Constitution would be ratified by states from the South.

[Gunrunner2]

Actually, in my understanding, the three-fifths provision was to dilute the power of the slave owning South.

[old3030]

"our guide and navigator. Lincoln..." ,

At last I understand the origin of the Lincoln Navigator.

[carrier-aviator]

The Constitution also forbids the importation of slaves after 1808 (U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 9):

"Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

I'd bet that lots of Americans think that the slaves of 1861 were fresh off the slave ship. They weren't...as the last imported slaves arrived in 1808.

[neverdem]

Actually, in my understanding, the three-fifths provision was to dilute the power of the slave owning South.

It was a bone to the South. Only freemen could vote. How were Representatives supposed to represent slaves who could not vote for them?

[neverdem]

Thanks for the comment. Do you have a link?

[carrier-aviator]

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[neverdem]

Excellent!

[carrier-aviator]

Actually, that Constitutional clause simply forbids Congress from enacting an anti-slave importation law prior to 1808. In fact, in 1808, when the Constitutional prohibition expired, the Congress and President did enact a law to prohibit the importation of new slaves.

[Brilliant]

I would like to see the GOP make the Dems actually filibuster. Until they do, it's difficult to say this is unprecedented. Threats of filibusters are not unprecedented.

A Senator standing at a podium reading from the phone book to block a judicial appointment--THAT is unprecedented.

[neverdem]

I would like to see the GOP make the Dems actually filibuster. Until they do, it's difficult to say this is unprecedented. Threats of filibusters are not unprecedented.

I used to think the same way, but they don't have to do that. They have a de facto filibuster just by refusing 60 votes to have a quorum, i.e. a vote for cloture.

[Brilliant]

Well, I agree with that, but here's the problem.

1) Once they actually make them take the floor, this business about it not being unprecedented goes out the window. No one has ever seen a Senator read from a phone book in an effort to block a judicial appointment. Once you see that, you immediately realize--this is unprecedented.

2) I guaranty you that if they DON'T make them do an actual filibuster, that when Hillary becomes Presient in 2009, SHE will make the GOP do a filibuster--a real filibuster, and then she'll say "This is unprecedented."

And the GOP will say, "No it's not. The Dems filibustered Bush's nominees."

And she will respond, "We did not filibuster. That was not a filibuster. THIS is a filibuster. It's never happened before until NOW."

And the media will agree. They'll say "She's got a point. The GOP did not make the Dems actually filibuster Bush's nominees. They only threatened to filibuster. This is a real filibuster, though."

The GOP leadership needs to wise up. They are not aggressive enough.

[mvpel]

A minor correction:

Liberals used to know this quite well back in the days when it was understood to be a perverse mechanism used by Southern Democrat racists to block civil-rights legislation favored by most Republican members of Congress and most Americans.

[Common Tator]

One little thing to consider by the author. Fillibusters were illegal from 1827 until 1872.

Lincoln was president from 1861 until 1865...

Click here for the 'tator take on the history of the fillibuster.

The truth about filbusters may surprise you.

[neverdem]

The GOP leadership needs to wise up. They are not aggressive enough.

They can't cut off debate until they change the rules. Dem senators can just rotate their speakers according to my understanding of the rules. They can't reduce a single senator to reading a phone book or anything else. That's a fiction from Hollywood.

They are afraid that if they change the rules for judicial nominees, then they open the door for changing the rules for routine legislation. Gun Owners of America, for what it's worth, agrees with that fear. With the dems having no scruples, I say go for it when you have your ducks in a row, and the time is right.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[gitmo]

They are afraid that if they change the rules for judicial nominees, then they open the door for changing the rules for routine legislation.

What makes them think for a minute that door is closed?

[Brilliant]

I'm not suggesting change the rules. I'm suggesting that we should not let the Dems off easy by allowing them to block nominees without actually filibustering. Make them do an actual filibuster.

[Gunrunner2]

Because, as it was explained to me, proportional representation was based upon population, not those able to vote, and by reducing the effective number of Black people this would reduce the number of representatives, thereby reducing the representative count for the South and their impact/heft.

Other than that, why else would they be counted if they couldn't vote anyway?

[neverdem]

Make them do an actual filibuster.

How do you do that when the precedent is for unlimited debate unless someone moves for a cloture vote?