shk75 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I came across this piece by Emmet Bondurant in the Harvard Journal on Legislation today and thought it was pretty interesting. It is rather long but he makes some good points about why he feels the Senate filibuster is unconstitutional. http://www.harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Bondurant_Article.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 *Edit* - that is a rather long law review article. Here's a summary from the Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html In addition to being one of the country's best trial lawyers, Bondurant is on the board of a group called Common Cause. Common Cause recently filed a lawsuit in the US District Court in DC seeking to get the filibuster thrown out. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-14/common-cause-seeks-end-to-republicans-use-of-filibuster.html The group, in a lawsuit filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Washington, cited the Senate’s inability to muster 60 votes to clear legislation allowing children of undocumented immigrants to become legal U.S. residents if they go to college or join the U.S. armed forces, and to pass legislation requiring nonprofit groups that run political ads to disclose their donors. Both bills passed the House and received a majority of votes in the Senate.“While the Senate can set its own rules, they can’t be unconstitutional,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar, a former Democratic U.S. representative from Pennsylvania. “This is an unconstitutional provision. A minority of senators representing a minority of the population of the nation can in fact rule with the current system.” Requiring a supermajority of 60 votes on legislation rather than 51 votes has become more commonplace. “With Republicans willing to use every obstructionist tactic in the book, even on bills they support, it’s a wonder the Senate gets anything done at all,” the chamber’s majority leader, Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, said on the floor yesterday. Since the Democrats gained control of the Senate in 2007, the number of motions to end debate, known as cloture, have more than doubled to 276 in 2007-10 from 130 in 2003-06, when Republicans were in the majority, according to the Senate Historical Office. In the current Congress, 84 motions have been filed to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Gotta check the Tyranny of the Majority right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 It is amazing how it was a "vital cog in the wheel of democracy" just a few short years ago, and now it is an abuse of power by the minority. You can't make this **** up. Your both evil (R & D), can we make you unconstitutional instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Your both evil (R & D), can we make you unconstitutional instead? Please report immediately to the Citizen Reformatting Center closest to your current location for mandatory realignment. Failure to comply will result in reassignment to a Soylent Green production facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Lawyers are a joke. I wish they would really focus on the unconstitutional things that happen in government (tons of stuff happened during the financial crisis that deserved to see a courtroom); yet they spend it on this which is clearly Constitutional. The Constitution says that each branch of Congress can set its own rules. At any time the Senate could amend the rules and get rid of the filibuster. Ironically enough; that vote would get filibustered and never see the floor. I like the fact that the Senate in some instances requires 60 votes to pass legislation (mostly controversial legislation).... it wouldn't be a special, more exclusive institution than the House if it was just another version of the House... which is what it has evolved into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Who holds the record for the longest filibuster in the history of the US Senate, and what legislation was it used on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Lawyers are a joke. I wish they would really focus on the unconstitutional things that happen in government (tons of stuff happened during the financial crisis that deserved to see a courtroom); yet they spend it on this which is clearly Constitutional. The Constitution says that each branch of Congress can set its own rules. At any time the Senate could amend the rules and get rid of the filibuster. Ironically enough; that vote would get filibustered and never see the floor. Among other things, Bondurant is renowned in Georgia for his community service. He does a lot of pro bono work, including death penalty cases. He's done a ton, probably more than any other private citizen in Georgia, to advance the cause of indigent defense. He's also, among other things, represented the citizens of Georgia at the US Supreme Court against a racially discriminatory reapportionment plan, and represented two guantanamo detainees who allege they were tortured by American interrogators. Still think he's a joke? What have you done that's so great? If you think there is "tons of unconstitutional stuff" that happened during the financial crisis, then do something about it. Don't complain that others are trying to address issues that are important to them instead of the issues that are important to you. Even if they are wrong on the merits (and I think they probably are) it's hard to dispute that the current use of the filibuster is having and will continue to have a demonstrable harmful effect on the nation as a whole (regardless of who is the minority party). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 Lawyers are a joke. I wish they would really focus on the unconstitutional things that happen in government (tons of stuff happened during the financial crisis that deserved to see a courtroom); yet they spend it on this which is clearly Constitutional. The Constitution says that each branch of Congress can set its own rules. At any time the Senate could amend the rules and get rid of the filibuster. Ironically enough; that vote would get filibustered and never see the floor. I like the fact that the Senate in some instances requires 60 votes to pass legislation (mostly controversial legislation).... it wouldn't be a special, more exclusive institution than the House if it was just another version of the House... which is what it has evolved into. Maybe it is not unconstitutional but he makes some great arguments and either way the framers definitely did not intend for the Senate to be run like it is now. I know all decisions have externalities but I think the framers would be appalled by the current use of the filibuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The Framers would be appalled by just about all of our current Govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The Framers would be appalled by just about all of our current Govt. Partially true. I'm sure they'd certainly be appalled at the repeated attempts by the far-right to create a theocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Partially true. I'm sure they'd certainly be appalled at the repeated attempts by the far-right to create a theocracy. Par for the course here at Huffinskins Post. Every thread turns into a thread about how the left wing thinks the GOP is evil, a theocracy, etc etc etc. At least you guys are presenting a united front of idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.