Skip to main content

View Diary: Can You Help Me End the Filibuster? (249 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Constitution also (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    otto, yuriwho, thethinveil
    specifically allows the Senate and House to create their own rules to run themselves.

    You can argue the filibuster is undemocratic and it is (although there are several parts of our government that are purposefully "undemocratic" to protect the rights of the minority).

    But arguing that the filibuster is unconstitutional is a mite tougher row to hoe. I do not believe it is unconstitutional personally.

    •  to be clear (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      homunq, airmarc, lightfoot, elwior

      The diary did not use the word "unconstitutional".

      I am mostly concerned about this as an undemocratic use of power and something that I believe--and all of this is opinion, after all--the people do not, and would not, support.

      Follow the campaign on Twitter. This DK account is for the sole purpose of discussing my Senate campaign.

      by Jonathan Tasini on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 07:57:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well it seemed (0+ / 0-)

        to be what you were arguing in the comment I replied to.

        Either way, there are many instances of undemocratic things in our government, some of which we the people specifically like, for example the Presidential Veto.

        I'm just saying, something more than simply it's undemocratic is going to be necessary.

      •  No, that was me. (0+ / 0-)

        And I hold to that opinion, regardless of what lawyers may say.  With all the strained interpretations that have come about to support corporate control of the country,  I'm willing to continue arguing for democracy, and I'll happily cite the Constitution in support of my position.  In other words, they can interpret it their way, and I'll interpret it my way.

        Sorry, JT, that my muleheaded perspective got interpreted as yours.

        I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

        by tle on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:45:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is unconstitutional in just one case (0+ / 0-)

        when it's used to prevent a change in senate rules, most particularly to prevent removing the filibuster itself. (Senate rules actually purport to set the bar there at 2/3, not 3/5!)

        ps. I have a diary about 6 ways to end the filibuster that I hope you read. You may well know all 6, but I bet you'd learn at least some titbits.

        Opinions are like assholes. I spend way too much time looking at them on the internet.

        by homunq on Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 12:50:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Constitution's grant of power to the Senate (0+ / 0-)

      to make its own rules can be read, I think, as NOT including the power to make obviously illegal rules.  No one would argue that a bill legalizing honor killings on the part of Senators was "constitutional" because the Constitution had granted the "right" to the Senate to do so.  I think the filibuster is pretty close to that category, if not quite in it.  At the very best, it's extraconstitutional.  

      If it is outlawed, will the Democrats lose on some bills they would have prevented by using it?  Sure.  Undoubtedly they already have done so in the past.  But in the event, the filibuster has not historically been a friend to Democrats, and particularly not to progressives.  It's been used against us far, far more often than it has benefited us.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site