tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3506358076494617264..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Yes, The Filibuster Is ConstitutionalJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-82542215601555548362011-01-05T11:09:13.592-06:002011-01-05T11:09:13.592-06:00Yes. I would say that requiring a unanimous vote o...Yes. I would say that requiring a unanimous vote on everything not otherwise specified by the Constitution is within the Senate's power.<br /><br />"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."<br /><br />The Supreme Court has ruled on the qualifications clause (Exon v. Tiemann, Powell v. McCormack), but it's always been reluctant to take up questions of procedure. In those cases, "Constitutional" means whatever the Senate says it means.Kalhttp://twitter.com/#!/Kalbelgarionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-21600226837081095432011-01-05T08:27:34.163-06:002011-01-05T08:27:34.163-06:00So how far would you go? Could the Senate raise th...So how far would you go? Could the Senate raise the zombie Articles of Confederation by having a rule requiring unanimity on all votes? Requiring supermajorities for regular legislation and appointments is, if not actually un-Constitutional, clearly contrary to the intent of the Founders.Ron E.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-24528269115235303492011-01-04T15:09:48.848-06:002011-01-04T15:09:48.848-06:00I think you're both right. When it comes to th...I think you're both right. When it comes to the Senate, "Constitutional" means whatever the majority of Senators (plus the Chair) says it means. There are very, very few rulings that I could see the Supreme Court taking up. Almost everything the Senate does would be a "political question" and remain untouched by the Court.<br /><br />If the Senate wants to say this or that is unconstitutional, that's their right. They can use any justification they want to change the rules. In the end, it's a meaningless question.Kalhttp://twitter.com/#!/Kalbelgarionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-35203961724113805212011-01-04T14:51:20.063-06:002011-01-04T14:51:20.063-06:00Democrats should be careful not to lose the narrat...Democrats should be careful not to lose the narrative by claiming filibuster is unconstitutional as opposed to arguing it is not called for in the constitution. And the GOP shattered the record for using it. And if they want to play that way and block filibuster reform, fine, they will never pass another law again because the GOP will never get a supermajority. Also, why is their first order of business wasting time on symbolic votes they can't win instead of trying to fix stuff? Democrats should rip GOP and make them pay a political price for this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com