Congressman Barney Frank (D. Mass), who, when given a choice of definitions for "constitution" is more likely to come up with "statistic in role playing games often used to reflect a character's ability to take damage, expressed in hit points" than the governing document of the United States of America, has suddenly sprung to the fore with his concerns over the Constitutional usurpation inherent in the filibuster. On (How are We Still on the) Air America Radio, Barney the pimp dinosaur (OK, that's not fair, it was his "paid boyfriend" that ran the male hookers out of their home), blathered about how God didn't create the filibuster and that it is creating a Constitutional crisis (just 213 years in the making). Apparently Barney didn't have a problem with the filibuster until Scott Brown (R. Mass) was elected, breaking the ability of the Democrats to circumvent the filibuster through a vote known as "cloture" ending debate on a topic through a 60 vote majority.
Well, when Barney Frank talks Constitution, I just have to check in on it because he's more likely to identify constitution as the stamina it takes to find a male hooker willing to have sex with his fat ass than he is to relate it to government. (Please note that my ad hominem attacks are both funny, and backed up by addressing the substance of the argument, so here's the substance.)
The filibuster, according to the United States Senate, became popular in the 1850's and was based upon the idea that any Senator should have the right to unlimited debate on a subject (which jives pretty well with the First Amendment). Let's keep in mind that in the 1850's, there were probably still people around who had been born around the time the Constitution went into effect (it was adopted in 1787), though they'd be admittedly old, they'd be younger than Ben Franklin when he died. I'd say the memory of our Constitution was relatively fresh. In fact, the first use mentioned by the Senate website above is 1841. The United States Constitution empowers the Senate and House to enact rules to govern its own proceedings (Article I, Section V). According to at least one text, the ability to filibuster had been in place since 1806 and the mechanism argued for by Aaron Burr in 1789. Surely these people had a grasp of the Constitution, as the ink was barely dry. Currently, Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides for the filibuster and mechanisms such as "cloture" to overcome it.
The legislative tradition of the filibuster is a little older than this, however, and likely would have been understood as a process by the framers. In fact, the practice is so old it was used by the Roman Senator Cato to head off the activities of Julius Caeser. Again, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were fully aware of the fillibuster (how's that for some alliteration?)
I would say the argument for the constitutionality of the filibuster is strong. So, Barney, please think before you speak, especially when your self interest is showing. Oh, and by the way, the cloture vote, which theoretically at least violates the First Amendment by silencing political speech (the most highly protected form of speech), was passed as a result of the urging of...wait for it...President Woodrow Wilson, the grandfather of the American progressive movement and a man with zero respect for the Constitution. He and Barney have a lot in common, come to think of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment