Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Filibuster Constitutionality

Senator Lott has suggested the Filibuster is not constitutional, saying he can't find anywhere in the Constitution that it is allowed.

I disagree.

Congress is authorized under Article 1 of the US Constitution to make rules.

This means that any rule that the Senate Chooses to make, is authorized.

If the framers had intended for there to be "no rule" or "nothing that prevented a filibuster" they would have specifically stated.

The existing Constittuion leaves open the option for each chamber to make its rules.

In my view Senator's Lott's position is not supportable: There's nothing in the Constitution that bars a filibuster related to Judicial Nominees.

There's only the requirement that the Senate advise and consent; it doesn't say that the Senate has to consent to a bad choice, nor do they have to agree to somethign they do not with to agree; nor pass/ignore/negate/change an existing rule preventing a vote.


The Constitution does not afford a "protected right" to any judge to have his or her name specifically reviewed, voted on, or constented to. Rather, the existing filibuster rule remains well within a Constitutional rule, within the existing Article 1 terms permitting the chambers to pass rules; and no judge has any position to mandate that the Senate take a vote or consent to their appointment.

It is up to the Senate to choose whether it makes a decision or not.

All assertions that the Senate "must" do something or "must not filibuster" are not consitent with the existing rules.