Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The House had one too - they chucked it.
As for the Senate, only in the last 10-15 years has this "silent filibuster" been in effect. And unlike "true" filibusters, which you can beat by waiting the opposition part (e.g., Byrd and his filibuster of the Civil Rights Bills), this new "silent filibuster" acts as an outright minority veto. Wholly different result.
|
No one's said the fillibuster rule is mandatory. And the entire Senate agreed to continue with this practice. Why is the "silent filibuster" any more (or less) unconstitutional? The result is the same; the effort to get there is not. There are plenty of good arguments why it's a worse rule from a procedural standpoint, or even from a standpoint of legitimately measuring intensity of preference. But the differnece between teh two is not of a constitutional dimension.
