EJ The Inconsistent. Or, EJ, the Opportunist.

There are some pundits out there who just say goofy things, and they don’t care what they say:

What Did the Founders Say Today?

  • “If the Republicans pushing against the filibuster love majority rule so much, they should propose getting rid of the Senate altogether. But doing so would mean acknowledging what’s really going on here: regime change disguised as a narrow rules fight. We could choose to institute a British-style parliamentary system in which majorities get almost everything they want. But advocates of such a radical departure should be honest enough to propose amending the Constitution first.”–E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, March 22, 2005
  • “The Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone ‘reconciliation.’ Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.”–E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, March 4, 2010

I had never even heard of this bizarre notion that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass anything until the 2005 fight over Bush’s judicial appointees.

Then, the meme was repeated ad nauseuem, because the Democratic media wanted to push their interpretation of the Constitution, goofy and specious as it was.

The idea that 60 votes are required is clearly nonsense. The Constitution says that a majority vote is needed to pass laws in the Senate. It does not say “Unless the issue is controversial”. The Senate cannot overturn the Constitution by using its internal rules to keep legislation from being passed that has majority support. The founders never intended the Senate to be a blockage point for legislation. They merely intended that since the members were elected for 6 year terms, they could afford to be more circumspect about legislation.

That’s it. Period. End of story.


Comments are closed.