Thread: The filibuster is unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by sangha

But there are qualifications and limits to those powers. They have been cited in this thread.

All of the tortured reasoning in the OP's article and of the forum members in this thread in support of the suit amount to...nada. The Constitution is quite clear.

As I said before, I don't even think the Supremes will hear this case.

Originally Posted by sangha

But there are qualifications and limits to those powers. They have been cited in this thread.

The constitution reads: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

What qualifications and limits could possibly apply to this simple statement?

Originally Posted by Mycroft

All of the tortured reasoning in the OP's article and of the forum members in this thread in support of the suit amount to...nada. The Constitution is quite clear.

As I said before, I don't even think the Supremes will hear this case.

Oddly, the situation appears to be that the Supreme Court would never hear the case because of separation of powers and political question doctrine concerns, but that if it ever did, it would find that it was unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

All of the tortured reasoning in the OP's article and of the forum members in this thread in support of the suit amount to...nada. The Constitution is quite clear.

As I said before, I don't even think the Supremes will hear this case.

Then you don't understand how our laws work

The Constitution is not the only source of our laws.

Originally Posted by Centinel

The constitution reads: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

What qualifications and limits could possibly apply to this simple statement?

Asked and answered

Originally Posted by teamosil

Oddly, the situation appears to be that the Supreme Court would never hear the case because of separation of powers and political question doctrine concerns, but that if it ever did, it would find that it was unconstitutional.

That argument hasn't been used in 200 years. Marbury vs Madison proves you wrong

Originally Posted by sangha

Asked and answered

No, not really. It doesn't matter though. Nothing will come of this suit.

Moving on...

Originally Posted by teamosil

Oddly, the situation appears to be that the Supreme Court would never hear the case because of separation of powers and political question doctrine concerns, but that if it ever did, it would find that it was unconstitutional.

I would say that the fantasy of the Supreme Court considering this case exists only in the imagination of Mr. Bondurant, Common Cause and, of course, you.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I would say that the fantasy of the Supreme Court considering this case exists only in the imagination of Mr. Bondurant, Common Cause and, of course, you.

Not sure what your argument is. Do you disagree with me? If so, about which part?

Originally Posted by sangha

That argument hasn't been used in 200 years. Marbury vs Madison proves you wrong

What are you talking about? What argument do you think I am making that you think Marbury dealt with?