Skip to main content

View Diary: Constitutional option now, not next year (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unless and until you can put forth a plausible (0+ / 0-)

    argument that the filibuster rule actually violates the Constitution, and nobody ever has, your use of the phrase "Constitutional option" is no more honest than it was when Republicans used the same words two years ago.

    The filibuster is Constitutional. There is no credible argument otherwise.

    Pick a different name, please. Because this one makes you sound like an idiot.

    --Shannon

    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 02:00:21 PM PST

    •  Not the filibuster in general (0+ / 0-)

      the 67 vote filibuster on rules changes, combined with the "continuing body" doctrine that says the House is a new House every 2 years but the Senate is always the same Senate. See this link (again) for further argument.

      This creates an unconstitutional prior restraint on the (current) Senate's powers (Article 2 Section 5) to create its own rules.

      The argument is solid. It really is the constitutional option. Also, I was echoing Udall.

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

      by homunq on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 04:52:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the problem, (0+ / 0-)

        I just don't think that the Constitution forbids it.

        It is, after all, a consequence of a Senate rule, and one that that the Senate is free to change whenever it wants to. The procedure that Senator Udall refers gets around the supermajority requirement, and seems (although I'm no expert on Senate procedure) to be within the rules, so I've got no objection to it (other than thinking it's a bad idea, as I'd prefer to keep filibusters but require them to actually take place.)

        It's the name I dislike. Because it was concocted by Republicans and designed to fool idiotic wingnuts into thinking that what the Senate Republicans were trying to do was a principled stand on behalf of the Constitution, rather than the straight power play that it actually was.

        And, really, if we had a Majority Leader with any balls, none of this would be necessary. We needed Lyndon Johnson... we got Elmo.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 07:50:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          The procedure Sen Udall refers to - voting at the start of a session - is specifically forbidden by Senate Rule V. Yes, most experts agree that it is nonetheless a legal procedure. That just means that most experts agree that current Senate rules are unconstitutional.

          The term "constitutional option" was created by a Democrat in 1917. (Thomas J. Walsh, the same guy who blew the lid off of the Teapot Dome scandal.)

          You're right about Elmo though.

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

          by homunq on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 10:19:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site