Is the filibuster unconstitutional?

[beNder]

According to Best Lawyers — “the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession” — Emmet Bondurant “is the go-to lawyer when a business person just can’t afford to lose a lawsuit.” He was its 2010 Lawyer of the Year for Antitrust and Bet-the-Company Litigation. But now, he’s bitten off something even bigger: bet-the-country litigation.

Bondurant thinks the filibuster is unconstitutional. And, alongside Common Cause, where he serves on the board of directors, he’s suing to have the Supreme Court abolish it.

Source

[LineDoggie]

Robert Byrd didnt think so. he was a King of the filibuster when in the Senate. He actually set a record with a 21 Hour Filibuster in 1960. Filibusters against Civil Rights for 14 hours...

The major change in Senate rules that made possible the modern filibuster occurred under the leadership of Robert Byrd during his first stint as Majority Leader. Byrd introduced the concept of "dual tracking" under which the Senate could have two or more bills under floor consideration at any one time. Prior to this change, a filibuster ended floor consideration of all other bills until the one being filibustered had been disposed of. No appropriations, no nominations, no unanimous consent agreements, no nothing. All Senate business came to a dead halt during a filibuster, which raised the stakes on the members conducting the filibuster exponentially. The pressure that would be brought to bear if the entire Senate ground to a halt was one of the reasons filibusters were so rare.

Once Byrd changed the rules to allow dual tracking, filibusters became almost pain free. A Senator simply had to announce they intended to filibuster and the Majority Leader would use his dual track authority to move to other business and get around the road block. Over time, most leaders simply did a whip check and declined to schedule a bill if a filibuster was possible..
The dual-track authority is a fairly big piece of the puzzle. But the question, in part, is why it's been allowed to stand. Both Hill experts and political scientists argue that the reason, basically, is that the Senate has things to do. The frequency of the filibuster means that ending the dual tracking would be the same as shutting down the government. It would be a high-stakes showdown over a Senate rule change, which is not something that many in the Senate have evinced much interest in attempting.


But this is how the filibuster was normalized into a 60-vote requirement. Byrd responded to the slight uptick in filibusters by making it much easier and cheaper to filibuster, rather than leading a fight to make it much harder to filibuster. But he saw that as streamlining the process. It's not like the minority was going to filibuster everything. It just wasn't done.
SOURCE:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...eated_the.html




Aint it a Hoot? when Dems Filibuster it is for the righteous reasons, when Republicans do it it's for obstructing and illegal ones. Harry Reid had no Probem with it when the Democrats were the Minority but now as a Majority it's suddenly wrong, And Love the George Soros doesnt like it either since he funds Common Cause...

[NeedsABetterName]

Article I, Section IV:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constit...nstitution.htm

The "filibuster" (as in, the Senate has no time limit on speaking) is a rule drawn up by the Senate under a power explicitly given to them by the Constitution.

"But as Bondurant notes, there’s precedent for the Supreme Court to review congressional rules: In 1892, in United States v. Ballin, the Court held that while “the Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings,” it “may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.” And while some may argue that the filibuster has, at this point, been around for well over a century, the Supreme Court has previously held that the fact that “an unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date.”"

Explain to me how a lack of a time limit, or even a difference from standard parliamentary procedure, somehow turns into "their actions violate the Constitution?"

This guy's argument is bullsh*t. You're trolling again. Have a nice day.