The GOP And Media Filibuster The Facts
By Prorev.com Editor Sam Smith
PERMANENT LINK - http://prorev.com/filibuster.htm
SAM SMITH, PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - The coverage of the debate over judicial nominations is one more example of the media
swallowing hook, line, and sinker the spin of the Bush regime. It is naturally in the Republicans' interest to emphasize
the potential use of the filibuster by Democrats who oppose the nominations for it raises the spectre of deeply unfair
and anti-democratic forces at play.
In fact, it is nothing of the sort. The filibuster is simply a long way around the barn to reach something perfectly
democratic that is not only in keeping with the spirit of a working republic but with our own Constitution: namely
reaching a consensus through what is sometimes called a super majority.
One may disagree with the need for a super majority but to suggest that it is anti-democratic is absolutely false. As
Senator Boxer has suggested, you could greatly simplify matters and just require a three-fifths vote for confirmation of
judicial nominations. There not only is nothing anti-democratic in this; one need look no further than the Constitution
itself for precedent.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote for impeachment, to expel a senator or to override a veto. It requires the
same for approval of a treaty and calls for special majorities if the election of the president is referred to the
House. It also requires a two-thirds vote to amend the Constitution followed by ratification of three-quarters of the
state legislatures.
What is truly amazing about the above facts is that we found them neatly summarized in a 1997 report of the Republican
Policy Committee of the U.S. Senate. The report also notes:
"Madison (always) and Hamilton (sometimes) were in attendance at the convention when these super-majority requirements
were adopted, and Madison himself was responsible for some of them. They signed the Constitution. They became its most
able advocates. . .
"Finally, we know that both Madison and Hamilton thought super-majorities were sometimes necessary because they
advocated them separately. In convention, Madison moved that a vote of two-thirds be required to expel a Senator or
Representative. His motion carried 10 States to none. It was also Madison who moved that if the choice of a President
should fall to Congress, a quorum must consist of two-thirds.
"Far from being opponents of super-majorities, Madison and Hamilton supported them. They supported them in the
Constitution, in The Federalist, and in the convention. They supported them because some rights are 'too important to be
exercised by a bare majority of a quorum.'" Given the corruption of our court system by both parties, the right to a
fair trial would be an excellent place to observe this principle.
The U.S. is not alone in using super majorities, as Wikipedia summarizes:
"The constitutions of a great many nations provide that they may be amended by the legislature, but only by a special,
extra large majority of votes cast (also known as a supermajority, or a "qualified" or "weighted" majority). This is
usually a majority of two-thirds the total number of votes cast. In a bicameral parliament it may be required that a
special majority be achieved in both chambers of the legislature. In addition, many constitutions require a that an
amendment receive the votes of a minimum absolute number of members, rather than simply the support of those present at
a meeting of the legislature which is in quorum. For example, the German 'Basic Law' may be amended with the consent of
a majority of two-thirds in both the Bundestag and Bundesrat. The constitution of Brazil may be amended with the consent
of both houses of Congress by a majority of three-fifths.
So, in the end - despite the gross misrepresentation of the Bush regime sadly reinforced by a faux objective media -
what we are really talking about is not the disruption of democratic procedures but their insurance by a firmer
consensus than a mere majority. In a country so bitterly divided as ours, a better consensus makes eminent sense.
Besides, given what happened in the 2000 and 2004 election, the Republican Party should be the last body in America to
lecture us on the virtues of majority rule.
PERMANENT LINK
*************
UNDERNEWS
FROM THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
EDITED BY SAM SMITH
Since 1964, Washington's most unofficial source
E-MAIL: mailto:news@prorev.com
LATEST HEADLINES & INDEX: http://prorev.com
UNDERNEWS: http://www.prorev.com/indexa.htm
XML FEED: http://prorev.com/feed.xml
SUBSCRIBE VIA TOPICA: mailto:prorev-subscribe@topica.com
PROBLEMS SUBSCRIBING? SUBSCRIBE DIRECTLY: mailto:news@prorev.com
1312 18th St. NW #502 Washington DC 20036
202-835-0770 Fax: 835-0779