Discuss - I've highlighted some key points from the Federalist papers that have certainly proven to be true. https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...-is-unconstitutional/?slreturn=20210508112347
The article only demonstrates that the filibuster wasn't intended by framers of the constitution, and that it would be constitutionally okay to get rid of it. But it does not show that the filibuster actually violates the constitution.
The constitution uses the 2/3 number a few times for outlining the legislative process actually for Bills, but leaves the Senate rules open for the Senate to write themselves. I'm not a constitutional scholar or anything but if I had to get in the mind of the framers I would read into it that getting 2/3 of people to agree on stuff is a nice bar to be set, but we know the framers were very worried about Congress breaking down which would over empower the executive branch, which is why SO MUCH trust is given to the Senate ,who clearly are given the most senior or mature stature in the Constitution, to have the ability to move processes along. They also definitely did not want the Cabinet picks of the president to be 2/3 so there is a definite awareness by the framers that regular governing could be halted by requiring 2/3 vote on normal stuff. So yeah on BIG things... the framers desired 2/3 vote obviously, but they also don't want a stagnant Congress. So on the filibuster and HR1, it's a debate because if Congress is unable to act in the face of the States going rogue to the detriment of the country.... I personally believe the Framers would want swift action from Congress with a simple majority vote. If it was for something like lets say admitting Puerto Rico to the Union... I think 2/3 vote is what the Framers would want. At least that's my take. I don't think the Filibuster is unconstitutional. In theory it's giving reverence to the Constitution on it's face, but it has been used though as a mechanism for halting all government action though which is directly against the spirit of the Constitution and our Republic.
Framers might have wanted simple majority rule, but they're all dead. As for the present day, they only need a simple majority to get rid of the filibuster, but don't have it. They can't get a simple majority to agree to rule by simple majority.
The Federalist Papers also supported robust checks and balances and a strongly heterogenous Republican government with the states keeping each other in check. The founders were not even in favor of political parties. The last thing they would want is a single party putting through whatever they want over the opposition of half the country.
Framers, frankly, didn't know what the hell they were going to get when decided to do a live beta test of democracy on Americans. We've learned a lot since then. They had some good ideas and some doozies.
They also would not want the Supreme Court being politicized or the Senate being used to obstruct everything another party wanted to do, but here we are. The last thing they would want is a single party refusing to legislate and govern just so they can regain power.
Who gives a **** what the Framers wanted. The vast majority of what the Framers wanted has either been completely changed or has worn away. The Framers lived 250 years ago before there were cars or trains or planes... there were only 16 states and not 50. Slavery existed and was legal. The first President had slaves at the time he occupied the White House. Their opinions were relevant 250 years ago, but not now. I have always felt harkening back to the Founders was a stunt. There isn't a single true originalist on the Supreme Court and hasn't been in over 100 years. The Supreme Court decides what is and isn't Constitutional and it is completely dependent on which party has the majority in most cases. The only value the Federalist Papers have if from a historical perspective. I say this as a lawyer, as someone that took every Con law class I could and who am jured three different Con law classes.
(1). Is this an argument to get rid of the fillibuster? (2). Which half of the country? Or more precisely... what "half of the country"? Since right now, the republican senate minority (as a percentage of the population) controls the majority of the senate.
Check the scoreboard.....The smaller half (your half) is preventing the bigger half from implementing the will of the voters. The fact the W Virginia is deciding major legislation is why China is whooping our ass.
While Manchin can and should vote whatever way he wants... the fact that republicans know he won't vote for this emboldens them to not even consider compromising or even supporting scaled back versions of the same. Which kinda defeats his own position that it needs to be bipartisan...
I’m posting from my phone so difficult to pull up references. The concept of the filibuster was known to the Framers and the concept of stalling or stoping legislation through holding the floor had been done in the Roman Senate. Further as the OP notes the Constitution does require super majorities for a few things so it isn’t all about majority rule and the Federalist Papers speaks many times about protecting the minority. While the framers certainly didn’t want the difficulty they saw under the Articles of Confederation they certainly didn’t want simple majority rule. If anything they feared that otherwise why bother with separation of powers, a bicameral legislature, and a federal system. The main issue though is that the Filibuster isn’t Unconstitutional because the Constitution specifically gives the Senate the power to make their own rules. Having it or not having is allowed under the Constitution.
It absolutely is. If it's not W. Virgina, it's some other small, rural state that ranks in the bottom third in the states that is holding things back. Manchin can certainly say it's the will of his constituents, but his constituents are some of the most government dependent folks. Conservatives have learned how to use the minority to create paralysis. CNBC: Joe Manchin is opposing big parts of Biden’s agenda as the Koch network pressures him
