Filibusters in the US Senate have become the parliamentary maneuver everyone loves to hate. The technique may be losing its luster, but is it unconstitutional?
A federal court in Washington on Monday takes up a legal challenge to the Senate filibuster brought by four House Democrats and the political reform group Common Cause, which calls the procedure "an accident of history, not included in the Constitution and never contemplated by its drafters."
At issue are Senate rules allowing discussion without time limit and requiring a vote of three-fifths of the members, or 60 senators, to end debate. That 60-vote super-majority, the lawsuit contends, is at odds with the Constitution, which specifies only a small number of circumstances in which more than a simple majority is required -- overriding a veto, impeaching the president, or expelling a member, for example.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
2 comments:
What a waste of time. The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 5, clearly states in part, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."
There is nothing unconstitutional about the filibuster and it is beyond the jurisdiction of any court.
11:32 is correct.
Why, and why now for this windmill joust?
Sneaky snake Harry Reid has been making noise about altering the filibuster process.
I'd speculate this action by several House Democrats is to give him some cover.
We'll see.
Post a Comment