Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama endorses filibuster reform (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Difficult and slow does not equal impossible or (0+ / 0-)

    unconstitutional.

    The founders weren't opposed to the idea that some things shouldn't happen in a hurry.

    Constitutional amendments requires a 2/3 majority in Congress (OK -- you could gather up a constitutional convention and bypass Congress, but you'd still need 2/3 of that) and then ratification by 3//4 of the state legislatures.

    Sounds hard and slow to me.

    Even judicial appointments -- federal judges serving for life -- could be viewed as one Senate (they confirm) imposing its will on subsequent Senates who can't remove the judges to install their own favorites.

    And, of course, the Senate is designed to be the "go slow" body, less subject to the whims of public sentiment than the House.  They serve longer terms than even the President, and weren't even directly elected until the 20th century.

    So, I guess I'm not impressed by "It's too hard and takes too long".

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 09:12:56 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I don't actually say it's unconsitutional. (0+ / 0-)

      Constitutional amendments do require a 2/3 majority in Congress.

      Tell us why.

      And yes, the Senate is said to be designed to be the "go slow" body. (Though the filibuster takes the "go" part out of it.) Tell us how.

      You begin to, by mentioning that the terms are longer, and by mentioning that Senators once were not directly elected.

      But all the things you mention in support of your argument are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Yet the end part of your argument is that there's constitutional support for this latter day invention that was somehow overlooked by the founders, then wisely "added" by accident later on, which led to the invention of a process of obstruction not actually discovered for another 40 years, at minimum.

      It's really not all that hard to find out what the founders really thought about the minority veto. Hamilton was pretty explicit about it. It was the reason he advocated abandoning the Articles of Confederation and adopting the Constitution.

      So, I guess I'm not impressed by "well, it's sort of in the Constitution," when in fact eliminating the minority veto from Congress was the chief purpose of adopting the Constitution.

      •  Chief purpose of the Constitution? (0+ / 0-)

        Wow. Learn something new every day.

        And there I was thinking the weakness of the central government and difficulty of collecting revenue played a role.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:44:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, happy birthday. (0+ / 0-)

          You never bothered to ask why the Articles of Confederation produced a weak central government that couldn't collect revenue?

          Really?

          Because it's pretty well universally understood that those failures stemmed not only from the poor design of the Articles' framework, but from the requirement for a supermajority (in fact, unanimity) in order to adopt any changes to them in order to address its deficiencies. It's what led Hamilton to write in Federalist 22:

          To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number. Congress from the non-attendance of a few States have been frequently in the situation of a Polish Diet, where a single veto has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode-Island, has several times been able to oppose an intire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which in practice has an effect, the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.

          And more succinctly:

          It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savour of weakness--sometimes border upon anarchy.

          It was why they abandoned the Articles.

          •  Yes. Unanimity. (0+ / 0-)

            I suppose it could be characterized as a supermajority run wild, but, given the amendment procedure, it can't be said that the founders were completely opposed to the idea.

            For that matter, I wonder if Bill Clinton (not to mention Andrew Johnson) might not have been thankful for the 2/3 supermajority required to convict an impeached President?

            The big issue with the filibuster is that it has become routine, in part because the mere whisper of "filibuster" has the same effect these days.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:05:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. Unanimity, or... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dinotrac

              The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it...

              You left that part of Hamilton's writing out.

              You wonder if Bill Clinton might not have been thankful for the 2/3 supermajority required to convict an impeached president?

              That's your offer here? Seriously? Yet another exception explicitly enumerated in the plain text of the Constitution? Really?

              Yes, the big issue with the filibuster is that it has become routine. That's actually kind of why people are proposing reforming it. So that it's harder to do than just whisper about.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site