The Filibuster: An
Unconstitutional Contrivance
On January 24th, the
US Senate voted
overwhelmingly in support of two measures to modify the filibuster
process. While these measures are
designed to make it more difficult to use the filibuster to block measures from
coming to a floor vote, by most accounts they tinker around the edges and do
not amount to the fundamental overhaul of the process which had been
discussed. Notable among the few
opponents of the measures were Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and
Marco Rubio, R-Fla. All enjoy tea party
backing. Their decision to oppose filibuster
reform in the manner put forward calls into question the veracity of their supposed
beliefs around original intent and constitutional purity which are also at the
core of the stated beliefs of
their tea party backers.
Most students of political
science, like me, were required at some point to read James Madison’s notes
from the constitutional convention. His
copious notes were written from his memory, each night after the day’s debate
had concluded, and only released to the public upon the death of the last
participant in the convention. These
priceless gems from history offer a unique glimpse into the debates of our
founding fathers which shaped this nation.
Two interrelated subjects dominated the debate: how to represent state
interests vs. popular interests and what means of determining the results of a
vote should be used. On this latter
point, many founders spoke of whether a simple majority should be required,
whether it should differ by chamber (once the Great Compromise was reached to
create an upper and lower chamber), whether some votes should require a super
majority and others not etc. We can see
all of this in the constitution they created, which in fact requires a simple
majority for passage of most legislation but a super majority for appointments
and constitutional amendments. What is
the point of this stroll down memory lane?
It is this: the voting process we
have today was the result of a highly deliberative process which considered all
permutations and was decided upon at our nation’s inception by our revered
founders. Since that time, each chamber
has taken liberties with its procedures; liberties afforded them by the
constitutional power to create rules for their operations. However, what happens when use of the authority
to create rules results in procedures which fundamentally alter what was the
clear intention of the founders as stated in the constitution? This is not a mere hypothetical to be discussed
by academics and constitutional theorists but rather the actual state under
which our nation has long labored. It is
true; the filibuster does not always preclude a simple majority vote from
occurring in the Senate. However, it
often does, and the prevalence of its use has grown dramatically in recent
years, contributing to the gridlock which has plagued this nation. This takes us to the tea party opponents of
these restorative reforms.
These Senators have often loudly
proclaimed that any authority of the federal government not clearly granted to
it in the constitution to be an unconstitutional overreach. For Sen. Paul, this has ranged from weighty
issues around the Federal Reserve and Civil Rights Act to arguably less weighty
ones such as new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. These views stem from their professed belief
in original intent and strict constructionism with regard to our
constitution. It is peculiar, then, that
these men would vote in favor of continued use of a practice which does more
than simply go beyond what the constitution allows and in fact contradicts one
of its more explicitly clear elements. It
leaves me to wonder how they can reconcile their vote with the supposed purity
of their beliefs on the constitution. I
believe the facts are so clear that this amounts to an ideological litmus test
both for the tea party and the candidates who claim to share the party’s
views. Opposition to the reforms must
cast doubt on whether original intent and constitutional purity are in fact truly
held principles or merely politically advantageous talking points they trot out
to support what they like and oppose what they don’t.
