Filibusters Are Unconstitutional

Yes, the title is provocative, intentionally, and could be hedged in "ifs," "ands," "buts," and innumerable other qualifiers; but I'll stick with it on this simple ground: nowhere in the United States Constitution is a 60-vote majority required to end debate on a bill. Two-thirds majorities are required only in a few specified instances. Search the Constitution yourself if you don't believe me.

I've been spouting off about this for years, but a recent short piece by my fellow Harvardian Matthew Yglesias gave me a link to save and blog about, which I had been wanting to do after hearing the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate use the possibility of filibuster by Senate Republicans as an excuse for the Democrats' own chicken-shitness.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened a return to Constitutional majority rule in the Senate with the "nuclear option." We truly do need to nuke this unconstitutional filibuster rule into the dustbin of history. Demand it of your Senators, people. U.S. Senators are incredibly conceited and arrogant with their "holds" and other prerogatives that slow the business of the nation in favor of Senator power; and this filibuster thing is the worst conceit of all.

Just click on over and read Matt's piece. I don't feel like paraphrasing it here this evening.