Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Shouldn't the Constitution be required reading for professional pundits?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-21-13 02:44 PM
Original message
Shouldn't the Constitution be required reading for professional pundits?
The bs being thrown around today on MSBNC about the Framers' intent and the filibuster rule is making my eyelashes hurt.

The filibuster RULE is a, surprise, surprise, RULE, not a Constitutional provision. The filibuster RULE has nothing to do with the Constitution, except that the Constitution empowers each house to make rules for its own governancce (implied: to the extent that the rules do not contradict a specific Constitutional provision).

Back in the day, before laptops, Kindles, television or even radio, political speeches of several hours were not unusual. (That is the reason that people who had traveled miles on foot and horseback to hear Lincoln were so disappointed with one of the greatest speeches in all of recorded history--it was very short by the standards of that day. Well, by the standards of that day and Bill Clinton.)

Originally, it was thought that any Senator should be able to speak as long as he damned well pleased. Later, Senators thought that, at some point, you should be able to shut a brother up and take a damn vote. So, in 1917, they decided on a 2/3 (or about 67% of all Senators) to invoke STFU cloture. Later, it went down to 3/5, or 60% of all Senators.

Still later, a Senator did not even have to speak. The Senate having become a place that people seem to enter with the hope of dying at their desks, this is understandable. Aside from Sanders, not many seniors want to, or can, stand on their feet for hours without a potty break. So, they decide that it would be sufficient in most cases to give notice of intent to filibuster. And that, boys and girls, is all it takes today to gridlock that body.

Notice that the original idea of allowing filibuster--that no Senator should be forced to shut up on the floor of the Senate--was rendered null and void when they decided that a Senator could delay, even squash, legislaton simiply by giving notice of filibuster.

If you are going to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year bloviating about politics or news, you really owe it to your employer and, more importantly, to your audience to read the Constitution at least once, maybe even take course on it. And, if something historic happens, as it did today, maybe spend 30 minutes googling and reading before you go on air. At least, read a wiki about it. Or maybe the explanation given on senate.gov. Or, you could just make a total ass of yourself and mislead your audience, wondering aloud on national TV about whether today's action subverts the intent of the Framers. (More than one MSNBC commentator did that.)

:banghead:

Speaking of making a total ass of oneself on MSNBC, Chuckie Toad claimed today that the Senate action on the filibuster rule gratifies the Democratic base, which has been upset because the roll out of Obamacare has gone badly.

:wtf:

Who knew pulling stuff out of your ear paid so well?

Yeah, I'm not upset about the individual mandate or absence of the public option, or about any of the other problems inherent in Obamacare. I'm upset that, for a few weeks, the website hasn't worked well. Why does he have a job?
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-22-13 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. People believe a lot of
stuff about the Constitution that isn't true, especially right wing tea party dummies like Chuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-22-13 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Like Sarah Failin, who thought it prohibited same gender marriage.
It speaks to same gender marriage as much as the Bible does.

Meaning, not at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC