Article I:Section 5:Clause 2
Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
I was watching Fox News Sunday this weekend, and I was irate at the misleading statements of the Minority Whip, Senator Dick Durbin. The discussion was about the Filibuster, and the tactic of the Republicans to use the so-called “nuclear-option” to allow the Senate to force the governing body to actually govern.
Durbin was unmoving that this was a “constitutional issue”, and that this was a “Tradition” and a required “Check and Balance” of the minority.
Well, Senator Durbin, I belive you are mistaken.
I cited the ONLY section of the Constituion that has any relevance to what you are talking about. It is easy to find as it is in the first Article of the Constitution.
Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
And as you can see, Durbin is right. The Constitution clearly requires that there be a Filibuster so that the minority party can obstruct the majority.
Its there in black and white.
(Okay, white and teal)
(Okay, okay, white, teal and black)
(No… not really)
This clause means that the House and Senate create their own rules of operations and engagement. The Filibuster is one of their crazy mixed-up ideas (I mean, serious, aside from Jimmy Stewart’s use of this in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, I cannot think of a good reason for this, or where the tactic SAVED the United States from bad legislation.)
Its not debate, its obstruction. Plain and simple.
So, why does Senator Durbin float this tripe that the Filibuster is a Constitutional Issue?
I’m reading the Constitution, and I’m seeing that destrying the filibuster is quite Constitutional, it is as Constitutional as the Vice President striking the gavel when the proceedings open.
fil·i·bus·ter n.
- The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
- An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.
- An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country.
Pirate, eh?
A long and honorable tradition indeed…
So is this a Check and Balance issue? Is this, as Senator Durbin suggests, an essential cog in the political machine?
I quote The Roommate formerly known as Matthew Maynard:
To illustrate that, let’s go back to elementary civics & enumerate the limits each branch has on the others:
- The Executive checks the Legislative with the veto
- The Executive checks the Judicial with the pardon
- The Legislative checks the Executive with the veto override
- The Legislative checks the Judicial with the jurisdiction limit
- The Judicial checks the Executive with the interpretation of law
- The Judicial checks the Legislative with the interpretation of law
And the Senate checks the President with the Filibuster… NOT!
Folks, this is a rule of proceedings. NOT A Constitutional Crisis.
Personally, I think its like the Designated Hitter in Baseball. It is an abomination and should be abolished.
Additional Reading: Politics and the Filibuster
I heartily disagree. The filibuster forces compromise in issues where it’s used, and keeps slim majorities from imposing their will when they have it. It’s an internal check, and it’s a good one.
I don’t know why the GOP folks are whining about this so hard when they used the same tactics to keep Clinton’s more extreme nominations from seeing the light of day. But Washington would rather bitch and moan than compromise, so …
Comment by Geof F. Morris — May 17, 2005 @ 9:06:30 AM
Regarding the filibuster, I disagree in part. My conservative nature says you don’t change tradition just because it solves a short sited need. That’s too liberal an idea. If you’re going to change tradition, it should be well thought out and based on sound judgment. If the filibuster is to be busted, it should be for reasons other than the nomination of a few judges, it should be because it’s bad and so far, that hasn’t been the argument presented by the Senate.
In the old days, it was primarily used to allow Senators to stall a vote to allow allies to arrive from long distances. That prohibited a impromptu quorum from acting like a majority. That need has disappeared and maybe the obstruction should also disappear.
Comment by Dad — May 17, 2005 @ 12:32:09 PM
I must totally agree with Jeremy. Harry Reid has repeatedly stated that we should not be trusting lifetime appointments to a simple majority vote. Yet, the Senate Tradition (that he so fondly speaks of) has always only required a majority vote. He implies the 60 vote rule has been the standard in stone since time began. Perhaps Mr. Reid should retake high school government class…
It’s obstruction of the legislative process, clear and simple. The judges need a vote, yes or no.
Comment by Chan — May 17, 2005 @ 1:14:35 PM
Geof: The extreme nomimees that Clinton appointed came at the end of his term, when the Senate was recessed for campaigning. They couldn’t have gotten a vote, and both the Republicans & Clinton knew it. Another tactic, the blue slip, was used in other cases by Republicans, but that’s not the problem here. Filibusters are different because they are *never* used against circuit court or higher judges – not once in 214 years. Now we see ten uses in 4 years.
GilbyDad: The tradition being broken here is that of letting judges come up for a vote, not for letting a minority of senators stall for time. The filibuster is a bad idea – it prevents the majority from expressing their will. Get rid of it.
Comment by The Former Roomate Still Known as Matthew Maynard — May 17, 2005 @ 2:11:41 PM
Yes, the final up/down vote is a simple majority; but the filibuster provision makes the 60% requirement a de facto standard.
Find me a Federal judge appointed to the bench with less than a 60% confirmation vote and we’ll talk.
GFM <– distant cousin of the Hon. Charles Pickering, who was the subject of much discussion in GWB’s first term :)
Comment by Geof F. Morris — May 17, 2005 @ 2:18:05 PM
Guys, GUYS!
I think we’re missing an important point, which everyone seems to have ignored.
The Designated Hitter Rule in American League Baseball is an abomination and MUST be abolished!
But seriously, everyone brings up good points. My feeling still is, there is a time and a season for everything, but the season of the Filibuster should probably come to a close.
Comment by Jeremy — May 17, 2005 @ 6:18:32 PM
“The filibuster is a bad idea – it prevents the majority from expressing their will.”
Read The Federalist Papers lately?
Frankly, I’m happy that a simple majority can’t get its way whenever it wants to do so in the Senate. And besides, we’re talking about lifetime appointments here: it’s not like we’re voting on yearly appointments or something.
I think you didn’t see filibusters in the past because the mere threat was enough. :shrug:
Comment by Geof F. Morris — May 17, 2005 @ 6:50:06 PM
Matt: I agree that the filibuster should go and have felt that way ever since I learned about it in civics class 40+ years ago. My objection is the reason that’s being used to justify its abolishment. It should be abolished because it’s bad, not because the Democrats are using it now. This should have been done the same time as the “Contract with America” was attempted.
Comment by Dad — May 17, 2005 @ 6:55:47 PM
Jer’s Dad: You make a good point. It shouldn’t be viewed as ending the filibuster simply because the Dem’s are using it, but because it’s bad. A prominent Republican made the case to keep them, “in case we need to use them in the future.” Senator Frist agrees with you, and stated that “If it’s wrong now, it would be wrong for [republicans] to use it for the same reason as well.”
And, to address the real issue at hand- Let’s boycott and not buy the designated hitter’s stuff on next Wednesday. That should make them get rid of it. [Heh, heh]
Comment by Chan — May 17, 2005 @ 7:06:17 PM