Chafetz & Gerhardt Debate the Constitutionality of the Filibuster

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Ken says:

    Falling far short of “constitutionality of the filibuster” is a practical question–are we gridlocked by the filibuster?

    My answer, which I have written on CoOp before, is a resounding “NO!” It isn’t filibusters that tie up the Senate, it’s the absurd “two track system” that allows some doofus to say “I filibuster” and shunt any piece of legislation off into limbo indefinitely.

    Make ’em really filibuster, like Wayne Morse had to, and we will soon see a breakup of the logjam. Filibusters, and the filibusterers, will be highly visible, and will become (once again) reserved for really important issues, not merely forcing the majority to come up with 60 votes to pass any bill at all.

  2. brooks white says:

    The question is not supermajority, it is superminority.On a weighted basis is Wyoming’s senator being granted more than 1 vote on material legislation that flows to the Senate. Has the Senate achieved disproportionate power relative to the House by reason of cloture requiring 60 votes. No disagreement about two track filibusters and the quality of our present representatives, but the Founding Fathers envisaged minority protection, not minority rule.