Government Reform 101 B: Barney Frank is Right on the Filibuster
Do you think that the U.S. Constitution triumphed last night in Massachusetts? Do you really? Well, if you do you must acknowledge that Barney Frank is right about ending the Senate filibuster. by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
If the unexamined life is not worth living, then the checks and balances on our constitutional government have triumphed once again. If not because of conscience, or in response to the summons of duty, then because of that simplest Darwinian instinct for survival that wriggles on in the medulla oblongata of the simplest creatures, even those that work in the bowels of government may yet live lives of quiet value. Consider this engineering triumph of a system of government that demands one examine the profit and logic of a political position in spite of one's own religious beliefs in the supremacy of central planning or in spite of one's prejudices in favor of the beneficial munificence of European social justice. Didn't our forefathers stand on the shoulders of giants and bequeath to us a legacy greater than any of the wonders of the ancient world?
The additional irony that this call to self-examination has arisen from the loss of the Senator Kennedy's own seat, from the seat of the very lion of European health, only means that that "Supreme Judge of the World" to whom this embryonic nation once appealed has not yet forsaken the her. It also means that the call to self-examination does not end with the White House or the Liberal Democrats. If the direct democracy built into our representative form of government continues to carry water after the geological epoch of social change from the Age of Reason to these modern relativistic times, why should it not work equally well when applied to the Senate? The senate filibuster should be reformed or abolished altogether.
"Barney Frank is right!" There I said it. I would rather have said Barney Rubble is my twin brother, but, as much as my every bone writhes at the thought of Obamacare, so much as in me is, I must say that Barney Frank is right about ending the U.S. Senate filibuster.
Why have the Democrats been so unequivocally committed to passing a bill that, since August, they've known the American people despise? Why have the White House and the congressional leadership broken so many ethical rules so fast that even the American electorate caught on? It's because if they got this monster remake of the American economy past the Senate filibuster, it could never be undone. Never? Yes, never. We had a blue moon in December this year. Once in a blue moon is idiomatic for never, but there have been at least fifteen blue moons since either party held a supermajority in the senate. Before the seating of Al Franken and Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris, the only filibuster proof supermajority occurred in 1965 under Lyndon Baines Johnson.
It would be better if legislators could write and then un-write legislation in response to the way it affects people in daily life. The "gentleman's filibuster" that requires that a senator only file a form with the Senate leadership to bring the people's business to a dead stop, is wrong. It is extra-constitutional and contrary to the design of checks and balances envisioned by men of far more ability and proven integrity than those who adopted the compromise language of the 1960's. One could put up with the evils even of Obamacare, if one knew that the democratic principles of this land would be allowed to operate to purge the scourge over time.
The risks and rewards of the filibuster are far too unbalanced. The right of veto is given to the president of the United States who is even more responsible to the voice of direct democracy than a sitting senator. Our system of law was certainly not designed to be vetoed by the random chance that confers upon the member of a certain state's representatives, by virtue of their minority status, to carry almost the full weight of a presidential veto.
On the one hand, the opportunity for one's state aggrandizement at the expense of its neighbors is far too seductive. A senator with a natural appetite for what is best for America can be far too easily induced to choose what is best for his small region. On the other hand, even those who are far less susceptible to the provocations of personal enrichment are even more greatly exposed by the injustice of the filibuster. While a man or woman might be willing to hold their vote and principles in the company of a large, dissenting minority, as that minority shrinks the pressure of the larger body weighs on the conscience of the member of the minority. He or she is increasingly vilified by the majority simply for holding fast his or her own principle. The pressure to vote against one's own conscience is increased by the filibuster. One must weigh one's values against the honest value of the right of the majority to rule. The combination of pressure and profit is a system that can easily unmake the last sense of honor and principle a senator might once have called his own.
The unconstitutional pressure of the filibuster on the minority must have a corrupting affect on the institution of the Senate. The ostensible reason for the filibuster is to put in check the "tyranny of the majority." Why should any American who believes in democracy want to put a check on the rule of the majority? The protection of the small states is written into the constitution by the establishment of the Senate's equal representation for each state and by the extended terms of senators. Rather than protecting anyone, the "gentleman's filibuster" stymies the will of the people and plays an institutional role in fostering corruption. The filibuster should be returned to a literal "right of senatorial free speech." A single senator should be allowed to speak as long as he can or until the supermajority votes that he be seated and, for his own health, eat a decent meal. Otherwise, as Frank says, the filibuster should be abolished.
Such a reform, of course, cannot be enacted by this Senate. The appearance of impropriety would be far too great. However, Republicans and Democrats alike ought to begin to sound the trumpet of institutional reform, and independent voters of every kind ought to ask prospective candidates for the 2010 Senate their opinion on ending the filibuster in the U.S. Senate.
Update 10-13-2011:
Tragically, the congress found a way around the filibuster, so as of this date the economy rests yet beneath the deepening shadow of the oncoming wave of economic devastation the Obama health care "reform" embodies.
The last glimmer of hope that remains is that what can be made in a "reconciliation bill" can be unmade just as easily.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Paul Benedict only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Paul Benedict is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-01-20 19:14:44
Hi Paul,
 Good article. I like the way you write. I disagree with you but that's just par for me. :-) I'm really surprised you don't find yourself agreeing with Barny Frank more often after reading your rationale.
I don't disagree specifically with your take on the filibuster; there's always room for improvement . I'd have to give that more attention before I form an opinion. I can comment on my prejudice though. I'm an expert in that area.
I am not in favor of anything that speeds up the legislative process. The only real change I'd like to see made immediately is to put an expiration date on every bill that is passed. This is a self-limiting mechanism. When congress becomes primarily burdened with reviewing expiring bills they will have incentive to repeal them so they can devote time to pushing their legislative agenda.
The next thing you said that put you closer to Mr. Frank than you seem to realize is the notion that Senators should know and promote what is in America's best interest. The Seventeenth Amendment would be a great place to start with the expiration date. Let's let that expire tomorrow. Senators are elected by state voters to represent their state's interests against the collective force of the other states in the union. I don't think anyone knows what is in America's best interest to begin with and I know I wouldn't vote for someone who thought that was a Senator's job.
Finally, your glowing dogmatic worship of the ideal of Democracy put you squarely at the table with Mr. Frank in my book.
I do agree that the paperwork filibuster is a fraud...an attempt to get something for nothing, a pursuit of freedom from the effort and consequences that a filibuster should bring to bear. A filibuster should continuously increase the incentive to end it. Every day, day in and day out the consequences of a filibuster should get heavier and harder to ignore. This pain, this consequence, is a necessary part of the process. A filibuster is not a filibuster without these components. It is just paperwork. Going through the motions is not an acceptable substitute for actually doing the assigned work in any job I've ever held. I think the same should be true for Congress.
The filibuster in the Senate is not a Constitutional question.
Common sense dictates that the respective branches of government must be allowed to create rules to conduct their business. The anarchy of libertarianism does not apply here and in fact even just this discussion is why I am not a libertarian...but a conservative.
With respect to the filibuster, it is one of the last remaining evidences of state's rights. If "nationa"" health care has such overwhelming support from the people, than a filibuster would not be a threat...too many senators would be afraid to filibuster such a popular idea.
Now, I would agree that it should not be the threat of a filibuster which kills the bill. They should have to conduct the filibuster..they should have to talk for days on end until the bill is withdrawn. That would do alot of things. It would slow Congressional action to a crawl, which would be a good thing, and it would require Senators to do some work.
The question of filibuster being "unconstitutional" is as wrong, as the arguements made about a declaration for war Iraq. Congress voted for military action..and that is a declaration of war...the Constitution does not provide the exact wording, our founders were not that petty.
Lets move on to more important things...like guarding the borders, fixing the financial mess which is our government, and living life without constantly having to watch DC.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2010-01-21 07:42:49
Hi Jafre,
Your point about senator's representing their states is well taken; however, there are times when ethics requires senators to do no harm to the other 49-- Nebraska should not enrich itself, ethically, at the expense of the other 49-- even if it is in Nebraska's best interest. Also, in times of national interest, foreign policy, border security, for instance, state interest is not necessarily a factor while the filibuster, nevertheless is.
Hi Mark,
The constitutional mandate of the senate never included a revolving "veto" door called a filibuster. Hence, I think it is a constitutional question.
Jafre and Mark,
I do agree with you both that a reform of the filibuster rule might be more effective than its complete abolition.
If the Constitution were followed, then Frank would be right on the filibuster.Â
But the Constitution is not followed, and the simple majority runs over the minority at will without it. This is far from the objective of our Constitution.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2010-01-28 07:45:39
At least you agree that the founders never envisioned a filibuster. I don't believe there is a filibuster in even one of the legislatures of the fifty states.
Ending the filibuster is a tough sell in this congress because we all know how horrid the results would be. The big problem is anything this congress gets by the filibuster will become cement. It will be very hard to fix this mess as it is.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
