Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the filibuster unconstitutional?
The Washington Post ^ | 15 May 2012 | Ezra Klein

Posted on 05/15/2012 11:49:08 AM PDT by Theoria

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last
To: Tenacious 1

“If Webster decides to change the definition of ‘Freedom’ or of ‘Liberty’ then the constitution ‘as written’ would take a whole different direction as the arguments before the SC would have citations from dictionaries submitted as evidence.”

Websters changing definitions is neither here nor there, as the correct way to interpret the Constitution is known as *original* meaning. What matters is what it meant at the time it was passed, not on down the road.


41 posted on 05/15/2012 1:16:04 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
This isn’t what the Founders intended.

But that doesn't matter when it come to the 2nd amendment. Or the 4th, or the 10th Or Article 1. But it matters for something cleary defined in article 2.

Additionaly Ezra Klein agrees with the moron. That by definition proves the lawyer is wrong.

42 posted on 05/15/2012 1:18:43 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (The United States of America, a banana republic since 1913)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
What matters is what it meant at the time it was passed, not on down the road.

I see where we are now. We agree. The original intent of what the words meant when it was written is the point. The BS starts when litigators argue what the intent of the founders was.

43 posted on 05/15/2012 1:21:35 PM PDT by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Theoria; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker

The funny thing is Mark Levin argued that filibustering judges was unconstitutional in his book Men in Black and on his radio show.

That was 2004 when Bush was POTUS and Republicans held the Senate and before Alito and Roberts were confirmed.

Naturally when Dems took the White House in 2009 he reversed that opinion.

I didnt buy it then either.


44 posted on 05/15/2012 1:33:56 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
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.”

______________

Yet I come across this from 1997: Madison & Hamilton Supported Super-Majorities . It's from the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Larry Craig [insert your reaction here], Chairman.

The Constitution itself, I believe, requires "supermajorities" to ratify treaties, and to amend the Constitution.

If Supreme Court Justices can in effect "rewrite" the Constitution, requiring more than a simple majority to confirm them would be in the spirit of the Constitution itself.

45 posted on 05/15/2012 1:38:16 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

The Constitution also does NOT give the Supreme Court the authority to overrule a properly passed law. That is action the Court arrogated to itself. But if the Court did determine to wade into the business of either House, It’s likely those Justices who voted in contravention to the rulemaking abilities of those bodies would find themselves up on impeachment charges and likely removed.


46 posted on 05/15/2012 2:31:25 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Why do we want to make them do that work, though? Might they not feel it’s easier to give up and pass the bill, in that case? And do we want more bills passed, whether by pubs or dems? No. Then why not make it easier to block votes?

Because an old-style filibuster would tie up the Senate until it was resolved. The more time the Senate was tied up in filibusters, the less time it would have to attack freedom.

47 posted on 05/15/2012 9:56:48 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

“The Constitution also does NOT give the Supreme Court the authority to overrule a properly passed law. That is action the Court arrogated to itself”

Well, no, not really. It’s just that many, many times they’ve been mistaken about that “properly” part.


48 posted on 05/16/2012 12:13:19 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: supercat

“Because an old-style filibuster would tie up the Senate until it was resolved. The more time the Senate was tied up in filibusters, the less time it would have to attack freedom.”

I can see that happening. But I could equally, perhaps more, see the laziness we’ve established causing them to filibuster less when it isn’t automatic. Someone must have done a study on the relative frequency of filibusters since the deeming to have taken place without actually taking place process was instituted. Throw in the contemporary unease with oratory, and I’d think more bills would be passed if phonebook speeches were requisite.


49 posted on 05/16/2012 12:18:28 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson