George Will has frequently argued that the filibuster fits into the framer's idea for the government--that it move very slowly.
I have a different take, though it's also pro-filibuster. If 60 senators can't agree on something, maybe it's not that good for the country. The only time the filibuster is an issue is when legislation can get 50 votes but not 60. Then liberals decry the filibuster because nobody can get anything done.
Many liberals would like to eradicate the filibuster altogether.
How about a compromise. First, I would hope we could agree that laws that will have enormous impacts on the US economy should probably be subject to something more difficult than a simple majority. If not, every time parties change we could see an unhealthy pendulum swing. That kind of uncertainty can't be good for the economy.
How about we eliminate the filibuster, but amend the Constitution to say you need 60 votes in the Senate and 60% of votes in the House to pass legislation that will last more than 10 years. Then, if you have 50 votes, you can at least implement what you like, though only temporarily. But if you have a popular, good idea, it could be implemented on a permanent basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment