Skip to main content

View Diary: Filibuster challenged in federal court (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No doubt, but what governing principle (0+ / 0-)

    would be in effect here?  For rules that are strictly procedural, the Constitution grants both chambers full control over their own rules (Article 1, Section 5).  It's hard to see how the cloture rule violates any principle that overrides that power, especially when the Senate adopted those rules by unanimous consent...

    Stripping votes from Black Senators would violate all kinds of laws, not to mention Equal Protection.  I'm not sure I see anything similar here.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 10:37:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      we can argue that it's wrong, or unhelpful, or anti-democratic, etc and work to change it but the Constitution clearly and unambiguously gives them full power to set their own procedural rule and the filibuster is by definition a procedural rule.

    •  Interestingly enough (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I was going to suggest that passing both houses by majority would be the violated principle.  However, reviewing the text of Art I, section 7 I find no mention of any majority requirement, just that it be done by Yeas and Nays. So, I guess if the Senate wants to require unanimity to pass laws it very well could  

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:57:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site