Skip to main content

View Diary: Filibuster castrates majority rule, violates Constitution (13 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I understand the practical arguments against (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, VClib

    the filibuster.  

    However, I have a difficult time following the argument that it is "unconstitutional."  Which provision of the Constitution does it violate?  The petition doesn't say.  And it doesn't address what limits, if any,  the plaintiffs believe are on the Senate's constitutional power under Article I, section 5 to set its own rules.

    The Senate was not intended to be "democratic," by the way.  The House was.  The Senate was intended to be a body to represent the states.  

    I can't see anything in Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution limiting the kinds of rules the Senate can pass for itself.  I can't see anything in that provision that says the Senate can't pass really, really stupid rules if it wants to.  "Bad" or "really stupid" does not mean "unconstitutional."  The Petition doesn't say where it believes a federal court gets the power to tell the Legislative Branch that there are limits to the kinds of rules the Legislative Branch can adopt under Article I, section 5.  

    I have a hard time even imagining a federal judge is going to rule on the validity of the Senate rules, given that the Constitution seems to vest that power solely with the Senate.  I think that would be a clear separation of powers issue -- the Judicial Branch can't tell the Legislative Branch how to run the internal workings of the Legislative Branch.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site