The Filibuster is nonconstitutional. That is not the same as saying it is unconstitutional: Unconstitutional means its contrary to the Constitution, while nonconstitutional means that the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. It is merely an operating rule of the Senate because the Constitution grants both Houses of Congress the right to set their own operating rules. For instance, the Constitution does not say anything about the Committee system used by the House and Senate to conduct business: it is allowed by the Constitution because the Constitution grants the House and Senate the right to set their own operating rules, and that's how they decided they wanted to do business. The so-called "Nuclear option" IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL: If it was unconstitutional, then the Democrats would have taken it to the Supreme Court for ajudication (like they did for the Nixon Tapes and the Impoundment issue). The fact that they CAN'T is a reflection of the Senate majority's RIGHT to change their operating rules granted by the Constitution. The Supreme Court was reluctant to get into Presidential election disputes with regard to the States, and you think they'll intervene when it comes to the SENATE?
If the Constitution somehow requires that the Senate have a Filibuster, why doesn't the HOUSE have it? They don't.
The Filibuster's purpose is obvious: to STOP A VOTE.
Think about that for a moment. The basic goal for a filibustering Senator is EXACTLY THE SAME as a tyrant and Dictator: THEY DON'T WANT A VOTE.
Look through the entire Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and whatever founding documents were written that went into the making of our Constitution, and you'll NEVER find a phrase like "shall not vote". Nothing in the Constitution forbids a VOTE. It forbids the making of certain classes of laws based on their content, but not on a VOTE.
Also, last time I looked, the President had the option of vetoing such legislation, and the Supreme Court the (questionable but accepted as logical) option of declaring it unconstitutional when the ones it harms brings suit. The "Congress shall not" phrases scattered throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives the President and the Supreme Court the necessary "check" against Congressional imbalance.
Posted by ptah at May 26, 2005 07:45 AM