Skip to main content

View Diary: Where is the Concept of the Filibuster found in the Constitution? (21 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There might be a lot of reasons (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carver, VClib

    to be upset about the Senate or the filibuster or majority rule or minority obstruction, but invoking the Constitution comes up pretty short.

    There is very, very little in the Constitution that specifies how the various institutions that make up our government are supposed to function.

    Your point is that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing a filibuster.

    True, but there is nothing in the Constitution that allows medical procedures like abortions. Are you in favor of banning abortions because they are not "allowed" by the Constitution?

    The fact of the matter is that Congress, both houses, have virtually no rules or even suggestions specified in the Constitution. They make up their own rules.

    And the Judicial Branch was barely mentioned in the Constitution. The Judicial Branch made up EVERYTHING about their job, every single aspect.

    The Constitution is akin to an architect's sketch of a project: it lays out the general appearance and that is about it. The Constitution doesn't specify the size of the rooms or what colors the wall is painted or what kind of furniture is to be used.

    And before you start assuming what the founding fathers wanted, you should probably brush up on your history. The "founding fathers" of the Constitution did not have anything like our modern government in mind when they signed the document. The Senate was not even an "elected" body unless you consider the richest people in any particular state getting together over brandy and making a decision to be an "election".

    As a matter of fact, the founding fathers, as your quote from Mr. RePass indicates, considered a filibuster to be perfectly acceptable. The Senate didn't even keep minutes of its meetings until well into the 19th century. If they weren't keeping minutes and records, do you really think they were at all concerned about transparency and effecting the will of the people????

    Mr. RePass and you can speculate all you want about what the founding fathers did or did not intend, but the fact of the matter is that the "founding fathers" were among the first Senators, they wrote the Constitution, and they allowed the unlimited filibuster to become a normal part of Senatorial proceedings. There has never been a Constitutional Amendment to change or even specify how the Senate operates, just a rule that was passed long after the founding fathers were dead.

    And the Senate is free to interpret its own rules and to abide by them or not abide by them.

    It is up to them, nobody else. Even the electorate cannot specify the rules of the Senate, only who is put into office.

    Face it, the Senate is free to operate in any manner it chooses. The Constitution does not specify the matter. Trying to use other portions of the Constitution to bolster your position as to what the founding fathers "meant to say" about the Senate rules is hollow, at best.

    There are only two types of Republicans: 1) racists; and 2) people who are willing to be associated with racists.

    by hillbrook green on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:47:23 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site