Leftists Continue War Against Filibuster
by Brian DarlingYet another leftist has attacked the Senate filibuster. The chorus from the left is growing and one can only assume that this coordinated attack is evidence that liberal Senators are readying a challenge to the Senate’s filibuster. The left absolutely hates the fact that they have to deal with that pesky Constitution that protects and promotes transparency, debate and dissent. They are intent on tossing aside the idea in the Constitution that we are a democratic republic with States being represented by two Senators with the right to extended debate and unlimited amendment.
This conspiracy by left wingers has a specific goal — to abolish dissent in the Senate, exterminate Republican participation in the democratic process, and marginalize moderate Democrats. It seems the left is willing to stomp all over the Senate’s rules to get a public option, regulate Wall Street into the Stone Age and pass global warming legislation before the end of one of the coldest winters on record in American history.
Harold Meyerson groused in the L.A. Times that the Senate has yet to follow the House in establishing government run health care through the establishment of a Public Option for ObamaCare:
The House delivered: It passed healthcare reform with a “public option”; it passed financial reform legislation; it passed cap-and-trade legislation that would slow global warming. But then it sent those bills to the Senate, where American progress grinds to a halt. The Senate’s filibuster rule enables the minority party to hold up any legislation that doesn’t have a 60-vote supermajority.
The Constitution explicitly states in Article I, Section 5 that “each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.” It seems that the left has a very short term goal of getting the government to become the de facto CEO of private health insurers, the financial sector and the energy producers of the U.S. economy by ignoring the Constitution and tossing aside the Senate’s filibuster rule.
In addition to Meyerson’s hatred of free market capitalism, he voices a hostility to the idea, as embodied by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution, that each state has equal representation in one of the two chambers of Congress.
Worse yet, the Senate’s rules make even more of a mockery of the principle of majority rule. With Republicans determined to keep Congress from doing its job, 60 votes are required to pass any significant legislation. As a consequence, Obama’s legislative agenda has been hostage to the demands and obsessions of the Senate’s most conservative Democrats, a number of whom — Nebraska’s Ben Nelson and North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, for instance — come from states with more ghost towns than cities.
This liberal hates Red State America and the idea that the Senate is a body consisting of 100 members from 50 states, because some conservative leaning states with smaller populations have the same influence as those from bigger left leaning states. It seems that every day another left winger mounts a case against the filibuster and we should expect more in the next few days and weeks.
Meyerson is the self proclaimed “most liberal voice on the (Washington) Post op-ed page.” Those that hate big government need to keep a close eye on the Senate to make sure that this left wing war against the filibuster does not get momentum. Remember that the filibuster is constitutional and essential for freedom.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
83 Comments
"They are intent on tossing aside the idea in the Constitution that we are a democratic republic with States being represented by two Senators with the right to extended debate and unlimited amendment."
no they are intent on throwing the Constitution in the shredder!!
This administration's only goal is to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! They don't care how they do it, as long as it gets done quickly! For Shame!! I hope all the people who listened to his lies and voted for him anyway are hanging their head(s) in shame!!
This will not be allowed to stand, these fools are playing with fire!
They hate it when it works for them, but would scream bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot, which it was just one President ago.
How soon those in power forget that the power you seek for yourself, one day will be used against you.
Don't worry, it's only a temporary thing – until the democrats are the minority party, then they will fully support the filibuster option, they're democrats after all.
Things are about to change IMHO!!!
Tea Party Full Force
They like to change the rules for their benefit after all just look to the tricks in Mass. It's ok if they defeat this (not really). Come November they will have a long long long time to live with it!
I'ts simple, Saul Alinsky Hillory Clinton's mentor said
'The end is justified by any means.'
These Lefty commies have got another thing coming! I can't wait to be part of the shock and awe that's coming in about nine months!
And in 2010 they will BURN
Be careful conservatives in congress the SEIU and Acorn bus is on the way and they are under orders to kick your butt if you continue to act up and defend the constitution of the United States.
Dropped on his head early in life, parents forgot to feed him for days on end, fed him magic mushrooms, screamed in his face to wake him up, spiked his baby formula, there are many reasons why Meyerson could have ended up like he did…
I recently saw a quote from John Adams describing a democracy as 2 wolves and a rabbit voting on what would be for supper then going on to say that a democratic republic is the same 2 wolves and rabbit but the rabbit is fully and well armed. The filibuster is the only armament the rabbit has sometimes.
So true and I like your optimism, but I don't think I want either party to be able to go "unchecked".
The Democrats are in a frenzied, desperate race to cobble together a shaky compromise on wildly unpopular bills before there might be a chance that angry voters can democratically elect a Senator which will NOT vote for the bill.
The public hates what little they DO know about the bill. The Democrats work in secret to keep the public from learning anything else about the bill, so that the public will not head directly to D.C. to drag them out and hang them outright.
Rather than slow down and deliberate openly, or start over, the Democrats hide and deal and wheedle a giant mistake into an eggregious, unforgiveable travesty. The people do not want it, so the Democrats intend to FORCE it on them.
The Democrats are elected by the people, but have chosen to represent Obama instead. The people's will is not to be done. It is Obama's will which is paramount!
America, welcome to a dictatorship. There is no longer a representative government operating here.
TAKE YOUR COUNTRY BACK.
When the GOP becomes the majority again, they should vow to keep the same rules as the Democrats.
Give me my BALL back or I'm going home
Well GO home and STFU!
No statesman ship; just gamesmanship. Disgusting.
Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule.
The Byrd Rule was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.
Copied and pasted from wikipedia on senate reconciliation explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(Unit...
Reconciliation
Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule.
The Byrd Rule was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.
Copied and pasted from wikipedia on senate reconciliation explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(Unit...
If you don't like the answer you're getting change the rules? It's time to fix this…
I believe the Leftists are actually intent on rendering the Constitution irrelevant by disuse and by redefining the meaning of its plain words. I read this fine piece by Brian Darling shortly after reading a comparably fine essay over at Human Events Online from A.W.R. Hawkins about the duty of liberty — asserting that we as citizens not only possess defined rights under the Constitution but attendant duties to exercise those liberties fully and vigorously in order to preserve them. The bicameral national legislature created by the Constitution has its federal structure from the U.S. Senate, meant to represent the interests of the states each as a whole and equally; the filibuster is a further strengthener of the guards against majority abuse of smaller states. But that's Leftists of today for you — pick on and abuse the individual, the smallest, the most vulnerable — all in service of the faceless, mindless, voiceless "collective."
I hope they are willing to pay with their lives if they plan to eliminate the filibuster. Millions of us are fed up with their contempt for the constitution and we are nearing a dangerous tipping point. This would be enough for the anger to boil over and those who believe they are our rulers would be in serious trouble!
man, this can't keep going on. Every time the DemoCommies are in power they try to destroy the Constitution. Every damned one of them should be brought up on treason charges for breaking their oath of office.
Consertive rhetoric–lay out the facts and let the opposition think it's Hell. Illiberal/Regressive rhetoric: STFU!
It seems that many of our "government procedures" were set up to protect the minority…the little guy. Now the Democrats want to do away with these protections! Stop it…just stop it! It is not the Republicans…THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT THIS GARBAGE!
If you thought that the health care takeover was a shrouded backroom deal, reeking with corruption and insider deals for unions, insurance, pharma, AMA, AARP, and a host of others, an eleventh hour parliamentary trick should be the cherry on top. You know we are in trouble when politicians don't even try to hide their corrupt behavior.
Kill the bill, before it kills us!
That will NOT be done because "Law Enforcement"'s Masters don't want it to happen. And "Law Enforcement" will do WHATEVER their Masters tell them.
the Senate was formulated to give an advantage to smaller states, and a relative edge to elites over population centers. The Senate has a built-in advantage to Conservatives already based on 2 Senators per State.
As far as this filibuster business… well its not un-Constitutional if you amend the Constitution.
A 51-to-50 vote in the Senate should be enough to let a Bill become law (noting the vote cast by the VP).
Where's Mr. Jefferson Smith when you need him? He would bust Meyerson's GD face and he (Meyerson) would stay plastered!
I know it's 2010 and we may be able to turn some things around but with Liberal Fascists like these I have my worries.
Term Limits!
Here us states: The tenth amendment!
Unfortunately I live in New York which should have a new motto the "Feed Me, House Me and Wipe My Arse State"!
I'm all for eliminating the filibuster if the states go back to having their legislatures select Senators. The 17th Amendment turned the institution into a disfunctional version of the House of Representatives.
Don't let "Law Enforcement" hear (or see) you say that.
Someone above said "This will not be allowed to stand, these fools are playing with fire! "
Except Obama is covering all his basis because he knows he is in trouble. Thats why on Jan 11th, he signed this order incase he needs to declare martial law before the election. (For whatever reason he will come up with)
"Obama has issued another executive order, this time establishing a so-called “Council of Governors.”
The order, signed on January 11, further diminishes the sovereignty of the states and builds on a framework for possible martial law. The executive order was completely ignored by the corporate media.
In other words, the Pentagon and Homeland Security will give hand-picked governors their marching orders under the guise of “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States,” a direct violation of Posse Comitatus. "
How does each state having 2 senators equate to conservatives having an advantage? Amending the Constitution does just that, amends the Constitution. They aren't amending it, they are circumventing it. If the party majorities were reversed, you probably would be whistling a different tune. The 60 vote majority is there to make it harder to pass unpopular bills. Also, there is a big difference between tax cuts and socializing health care.
With fewer and fewer people paying taxes-indeed living off taxes, can the rest stop this 'change' to be a 3rd world country?
Nor do I Tom! A balance and some cooperation would be nice. Who would have thought we could have a 60/40 split in the Senate and hold the party line on the Healthcare legislation? I would have anticipated some crossover but that bill is really really toxic for most taxpayers who come here. By the time 2012 rolls around it could indeed be 3 parties!
Oh yeah, like the Dems did when Bush attempted to get Judges nominated for the courts. The Dems apparently forgot the term advice and consent.
The Left, far or not, would be well advised to remember that "what goes around comes around"! I remember be taught in Grammar School that the R's to prevent another FDR 4 term passed the ammendment that prevent IKE from a third term. Don't mess with the wisdom of the dead old white guys!
Did any of the lefties consult Bob Byrd before taking this stand?
Now THIS is incredibly funny!!! "A fair up or down vote"! If not, use the nuclear option. Didn't we just have this discussion in 2005 and 2006?
I'm wondering whether Congressional democrats, who see the writing on the wall regarding Obamacare, will go with their primary instinct of job preservation. They will come up with a compromise that is purposely unpalatable to one chamber or another, Pelosi and Reid will allow the necessary vote for the folks back home and everyone has cover.
There are a bunch of states with small populations (populations smaller than a mid sized city in Texas for instance) that are represented by two Senators (obviously). Vermont, New Hampshire, the Dakotas, Montana and others are represented by two Democrats (which is the choice of their citizens) so I don't see a natural advantage to conservatives.
Am I misunderstanding you coggy?
"MR. PRESIDENT, I STAND GUILTY AS FRAMED! BECAUSE SECTION 29 IS GRAFT!"
That line from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington says it all, doesn't it?
There will be three winners in Obamacare: Insurance, Health Care industry and unions. The losers: we the people. This is NOT about better health care. Follow the money.
Check out this Harpers article that reports on the payouts from insurance and health care to get what they want in the bill http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740.
And the unions are now "exempt" from the Cadillac Tax on big insurance plans, even though union members are the ones with the plans. See the WSJ article today on "Labor's $60B payoff" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703...
Remember in 2005 when the MSM and Democrats in the minority held up the filibuster as the Last Bastion of Liberty against the eeeevilll imperialist designs of BushHitler and his Republican Senatorial henchmen? Guess they'll be singing the same tune come 2011 when they're in the minority again..
There are alot in law enforcement and the military that are not going to stand in the way of Americans taking back thier country. I can't remember the name of the group but they take an oath to uphold the constitution and not stand in the way of patiots doing thier duty of protecting thier country. Of course this group has now been labeled a "terrorist" organization by the government.
This is actually a good thing. Barely months before the dumbocrats lose control of the Senate, they are going to abolish the filibuster. The coming Republican majority is going to be happy not to be inconvenienced by filibustering democrats.
It was the Oath Keepers:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
Unfortunately, they are a small minority of "Law Enforcement" and the military. I suspect many of the military sympathize, and many will not turn their weapons on their fellow citizens even if ordered by The One. However, I think that has more to do with who their leadership is than individual choice. There is no shortage of "Perfumed Princes" in the military who got where they are by sucking appropriately. I would expect them to enthusiastically follow orders. There are many who do not aspire to that position. General Powell is, I believe, a prime example of the first. General Schwarzkopf is an example of the second. How many of each are there? I don't know. I do suspect that the issue will really drop down to Company level NCOs and Officers, who would make the ultimate decision – and pay the ultimate price.
"Law Enforcement", on the other hand… There are exceptions, such as Arpaio. They seem to be largely despised by "Law Enforcement" as a whole, however, so I think I know which way they would break. Even some of those who may CLAIM to be otherwise. With what this government has become, I have no doubt that many of THEM are actually infiltrators just looking to keep tabs on any organization that may not stand for tyranny. That's why I say thank them if you wish. Or curse them for what they've done to this country. It's your choice. For now, anyway.
There is no right to filibuster in the Constitution. At least not the document written by our founding fathers and ratified by "the several states".
If the filibuster dies it will be from abuse. It was never meant to require 60 votes on every issue. If one party decides to use it to impose their will or shut down the government we are going to see the rules change.
I think the filibuster needs to stay, but senate business should be halted while it is in effect. That puts pressure on both sides to compromise and get government moving again. Today there is no motivation to compromise by either side.
No, the 17th gave the people the right to vote for their senators.
This article is based on a totally incorrect assumption. There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions the filibuster. It is a Senate tradition that has soared in use since the Democrats took over the Senate in 2006. While it has existed for some time, it has never been used as it is now to stifle so much legislation. The Republicans even threatened the filibuster 3 times for a bill that subsequently passed 97-0. Also, the Republicans threatened to eliminate the filibuster a few years back over judicial nominations that the Democrats were filibustering. This was the so-called Nuclear Option. It was averted when a bipartisan group agreed on a plan to vote up or down on the judges involved. So, was that a sign that the Republicans hated the constitution. Of course not. This kind of article that takes a standard occurrence and tries to say that it's a sign of Democrats hatred for the constitution reveals a lot more about the author than it does about the democrats. Specifically that the writer is a partisan with no regard for the truth or actual historical events.
You should read the executive order. It was written to better coordinate national response to national threats. It has nothing to do with usurping state sovereignty or anyone's right to vote. Where do you these ideas?
Here, read it for yourself:
"The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security."
But don't let national security get in the way of a good rant….
I'm curious – do you have the order number or a reference where we can look at the text?
Eisenhower had no interest in a third term. By 1960 he was 70 years old and ready to retire from public life.
He opposed presidential term limits for the same reason we all should oppose them… it made him a lame duck after the first year of his second term.
The senate will not blow up the filibuster. There are not enough Republicans to do anything, and Democrats can't agree on lunch. Plus it is the base of much of their personal power.
That said, they may want to tweak the rule a bit to make it do what it was intended to do… force compromise.
Always a possibility during an election year. What is more probable is that they will pass health care and then put off any new initiatives until after the elections. Also, expect a flurry of congressional activity from the lame duck congress should Republicans win back the House in November.
The entire time Bush was in office that the Republicans controlled controlled congress (2001-2007) there were never more than 60 or 70 cloture motions filed. In 2008 with a Democratic congress there were almost 140. The new norm is that every vote involves a cloture motion… clearly an abuse of process.
Historically we have seen about 40 cloture motions filed each year regardless of which party controlled the senate.
they only want to recycle the parts used to wipe their asses
So you think Republicans are going to take back the senate this year Jerry? I guess you can never say never, but currently the Dems control 60 seats with only 33 up for grabs. And more Republicans than Democrats are up for reelection. So good luck with that.
Probably you are just going to have to sit back and hope the economy melts down for the 2012 elections. But if you are going to do that you should probably go all in and buy gold….and ammo.
Just where in the Constitution is the filibuster mentioned?
In point of fact it is a rule adopted by the Senate itself. The intent of unlimited debate was to insure a through and complete discussion of contentious issues. This has been bastardized into a requirement for a “super majority” of 60% to enact any meaningful legislation or confirm a presidential appointment, and now serves to enable a minority of Senators including party renegades to hold essential actions hostage to their demands.
With proliferation of Congressional staff and the development of the Internet/email, speeches on the floor of the Senate have become largely symbolic, and are highly unlikely to sway anyone’s vote. It is also highly unlikely that anything can be usefully discussed for more than 10 hours per side.
Just as the human appendix, the filibuster has far outlived its usefulness, and has become a potential liability. If representative democracy is to survive the filibuster must be greatly restricted or eliminated to eliminate the tacit veto power of a 40% minority.
Concerning cap and trade, many people think that it is a solution to stopping global warming. It is actually just a way to monopolize smaller businesses out of existence! Cap and trade will do nothing but hurt the TECH FIX which is simply renewable energy collection and storage made en mass by automated factories. Only a small tax on the coal industry is acceptable IF it was used just for such urgently needed research and development.
Obviously, the diffuse nature of solar energy must be captured by mirrors and PV panels made by robotic means (much cheaper than now) . The billions of such would then be installed by real people who needs real jobs. That's the solution to the future…
Yes on (very cheap) Solar, No on cap and trade!
Were you ready to threaten murder when the Republicans tried to do away with the filibuster when they were in the majority?
In the Bible, this is called "Jacob's trouble" in the latter days! Without exception, all the religious nuts have called for America becoming captured, etc. by a United Europe, etc. when the real problem is that our country has been following the progressive movement over 100 years and will not allow anybody without a fatalistic personality Citizenship! Thus, "Jacob's trouble" really is about the real tribes of Israel being persecuted by satanic forces (progressive agenda) within it's own country! Can't say "Don't buy until you see our blood in the streets as the Jews did in WW II because the winner this time CAN NOT BE BOUGHT OFF! GET IT?
There used to be a House filibuster. I say reinstate it!
I never thought I say this but I miss ggeorgebush
The assumption of your post is incorrect "Johio." The Constitution states that each chamber has the constitutional power to "determine the rule of its proceedings." The Senate passed the rule that establishes the Cloture rule that governs filibusters by a 2/3rds vote. When the Republicans threatened to abolish it by deploying the so-called Nuclear Option, they were threatening to change the Senate's rules with a dangerous precedent. This majority vote to change the rules would have ignored the fact that it takes a 2/3rds vote to change the rules of the Senate. Conservatives, libertarians and those who cherish freedom should educate others on is terrible idea.
Clearly you did not read my piece. The Constitution says that each chamber can makes its own rules. The Senate adopted this rule by 2/3rds vote and your buddies on the left can't get rid of it with a majority vote. The left really hates any rules that protects the right of the minority, when that minority is a conservative. The great irony in the ObmaCare debate is that the filibustering minority view in the Senate is protecting a majority view of the American people that this bill absolutely sucks.
"Just as the human appendix, the filibuster has far outlived its usefulness, and has become a potential liability."
Sorry George, but this bloated, 2100-page monstrosity of health care "reform" , despite the fact that it is opposed by 2/3rds of voters polled, proves that the current cloture rules are essential to our continuance as a representational republic, rather than the one-party dictatorship we will become should it slither through to passage. It's too bad it doesn't call for a full 2/3rds majority.
How can wanting to modify something that is NOT in the cconstitution show contempt for the constitution. If you value that document, which you seem to, shouldnt you know what's in it and what isn't? The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It's a Senate rule, nothing more. It has been modified in the past and can be in the future.
How? How can having an advantage to small states give an advantage to the elite? Don't the elite live in large cities? They all mock fly over country, the less populated states.
The answer might be that at the beginning, the House members were elected by the people acting individually, but the Senators were chosen by the state legislatures and therefore were more likely to represent the elites. Since they aren't selected that way now, I'm not sure you can make the case that the current setup favors the elites. Still favors small states, but that was intentional in the design.
Actually the opinion polls are confusing on that. Some of them indicate that half the opposition to the bill is that it doesn't go far enough.
I don't agree. This article's point is that by wanting to change the filibuster, the Democrats are attacking the constitution. My point is that can't be the case if the filibuster isn't in the constitution at all.
As to your point, that a rule change to eliminate the filibuster would be a terrible idea, I'm not sure I see why this is. What would happen is that majority would rule, same as it does in the house. This would disadvantage the minority, but why would that be a loss of freedom? Is there something inherently more free about allowing 40% of the legislative body to control the outcome of legislation? Doesn't that harm the 60% who voted for the majority?
Brian, you do realize that no where in the US Constitution does it say we have a Democratic Reublic or a Democracy for that matter. We were once a free complex Republic until 1913. That was when we became a democracy one of the most vile forms of goverment on the planet. We are nearly identical to the elections of France and the former Soviet Union now. You should familarize yourself with Article 4 Section 4 which guarentees the United States a Republican form of goverment. Don't get me started with Article 1 Section 2. Have a nice day.
You do realize that there are also supposed to be 10,000+ members of congress with our current population of 300 million. It is called the 30,000 rule you can read Article 1 Section 2 US Constitution. They've been at destroying the constitution for a long time about 100 years. You should run for office if you are serious about fighting them.
yes, still favors small states, which is arguably – in a sense – favoring elites.
but that was not my assertion above. Above I didn't say elites but conservatives.
After a lot of thought, I have to back off that assertion. Its wrong. There can be conservative elites or liberal ones. It can slice either way.
I guess I tend to think of small states as being more conservative. Guess its because I live in California.
[...] for Freedom,” “Vice President Biden v Senator Biden on Filibuster,” and “Leftists Continue War Against Filibuster.” Sphere: Related Content Share on: Facebook | digg_url = [...]
Property Solicitor…
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]…
Conveyancing Solicitor…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]…
Links…
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.