Follow BeltwayBlips on Twitter
The Constitutional Status of the Filibuster
Matthew Yglesias —
Kevin Drum says filibustering is unconstitutional:
In any case, I continue to think the filibuster is unconstitutional. The fact that certain types of legislation (treaties, constitutional amendments, veto overrides, etc.) specifically require supermajority votes is evidence that the framers assumed that ordinary legislation should be passed by majority vote. Assumed it so strongly, in fact, that they never seriously considered the possibility that they had to spell it out.
Until I get the Supreme Court to ...
The Filibuster and the Constitution
Lawyers, Guns and Money —
To make some comments on the conversation between Drum and Yglesias (and Hertzberg): The case for the constitutionality of the filibuster starts from a compelling basis: Article I specifies that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Against this, Kevin makes an argument from structural inference: "The fact that certain types of legislation (treaties, constitutional amendments, veto overrides, etc.) specifically require supermajority votes is evidence that the framers assumed that ordinary legislation should be passed by majority ...
El Filibusterismo, plus Friday night Platonic self-promotion
Crooked Timber —
... and Drum had a back-and-forth about the constitutionality, morals and manners of the filibuster. I think more hay should be made of the fact that ‘filibuster’ does not, as one might expect, derive from the name of some thoroughly American, corn-stuffed, long-winded Senator from a nigh-depopulated state. (‘The Senate now recognizes the honorable Horatio Wheatbender Filibuster, from the great state of …’) No, as wikipedia explains: “The term filibuster was first used in 1851. It was derived from the Spanish filibustero meaning pirate ...
Time To Bust The Filibuster?
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan —
... An angry Congress could block these changes. But the majority doesn't want to block these changes. They want action on these problems, even if they can't be the actors. So they permit these second-best outcomes that address the issues, but do so by shrinking Congress's authority.
That's not a very good situation, of course. It's less accountable, for one thing. And it's less efficient.
Ezra has more great thoughts here. Drum and Yglesias chime in here and here. Harold Meyerson offers some strong parting words: ...
Senate, Heal Thyself
Opinionator —
... on the first principle of democracy, that of majority rule.” Writing in The Washington Post last week, Myerson added: “The increasingly routine use of the filibuster stymies the efficacy of government (in itself a conservative objective) and negates the consequences of elections.” Kevin Drum argues that the filibuster is in fact “ unconstitutional .” The fact that certain types of legislation (treaties, constitutional amendments, veto overrides, etc.) specifically require supermajority votes is evidence that the framers assumed that ordinary legislation should be passed by ...
Is Filibustering Constitutional?
The Monkey Cage —
One question about filibustering which comes up frequently is whether the Senate filibuster is “constitutional”. This came up in a 1994 New Yorker piece and a recent exchange between Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias (Aug. 5, Aug. 6). The gist of the argument is that the Constitution already spells out all the supermajority requirements for legislative action (2/3 for treaties, removal, expulsion, Constitutional amendments) so the 60-vote threshold for most legislation and nominations to clear the Senate is an additional and unintended hurdle in the ...
