Case Will Test Constitutionality Of The Filibuster

[Coexist]

(xpost from GD)

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/09/160845467/case-will-test-constitutionality-of-the-filibuster?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw

The non-partisan advocacy group Common Cause has filed a law suit with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to get the Senate's use of the filibuster declared unconstitutional. Weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz speaks with Common Cause president Bob Edgar.

(you can listen to the interview at the link)

[zbdent]

1. Suddenly, you will have waves of Republicans protesting the

"Nuclear option" ... sorry, "Noo-que-larr op-shun" ...

[Igel]

4. Yup.

And they'll sound like the waves of (D) who protested the nuclear option when (R) talked about it.

Kvetching is human.

And why are you mocking Jimmy Carter's pronunciation of "nuclear"? (Or, for that matter, Bill Clinton's when speaking to a Southern audience?)

(Personal aside: "noo-kyoo-ler" doesn't sound so bad to me when it refers to energy and power plants or bombs, but it sounds virtually unintelligible when it refers to family, binding energy, and processes like meiosis and mitosis. Bybee rules!)

[zbdent]

5. I'm not advocating the "nukular option" ...

I've seen why it needs to be there.

But I also think that you don't need to filibuster virtually everything just to run out the clock.

[qazplm]

2. not sure how they have standing

to sue.

[grantcart]

3. they won't

Each chamber has the power to set its own rules.

More of a conscious raising exercise I am guessing.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Exactly on the first point.

Also, the courts don't have jurisdiction to dictate how the chambers operate.

[former9thward]

7. Their argument on standing is very weak.

They say they have standing because their work on the DREAM was "wasted' when the filibuster rule was applied to it. Not getting legislation you want passed is not a standing argument. It would have been nice if they had been able to just get one Senator to join the suit but they didn't.

[NYC Liberal]

8. This is silly.

From another article that explains the case:

“The bills died in the Senate without the Senate majority having had an opportunity to debate or pass them, in violation of Article I, section 7’s procedures for the passage of legislation,” the group writes in its brief. “Whether the bills would have passed is irrelevant to the question of whether Rule XXII inflicted a procedural injury on the plaintiffs, and as a result, illegally denied them an opportunity to obtain the concrete benefits of the DREAM and DISCLOSE Acts.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/making-the-case-that-the-filibuster-is-unconstitutional/

Many (perhaps even most) bills are never voted on by the full Senate. What about all the bills referred to committees that are never acted on?

The injury is so remote that I would be shocked if they were recognized as having standing. It will be treated the same way as taxpayer standing was in Frothingham v. Mellon, where the plaintiffs claimed they could sue merely by virtue of having paid taxes. The Supreme Court rejected that argument:

The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally

Also, Article 1, Section 7 has nothing that would render the filibuster unconstitutional. It doesn't say all bills must be voted on, nor does it say that a simple majority is the most that can be required for passage. Here it is:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.