This is a brief note-to-self on the one-way nature of the filibuster.
The Democrats in the Congress seem to be getting some grief for not doing much to stop the dismantling/destruction of fill-in-the-blank (the Federal government, NATO, international trade, our system of justice, and so on).
And while that is true, to all appearances, I think it’s mostly the case that there’s not much they can do.
Which brings me to the filibuster, as I understand it. In the Senate, if the majority is under 60%, the minority party can use the filibuster rules to stop new legislation from being passed. Or considered. Whatever.
The operative phrase there is “stop new legislation”. The filibuster allows the (significant) minority party in the Senate to stop the opposing party’s new legislative initiatives.
But suppose stopping legislation isn’t your problem. Instead, in this case, you are begging for The Senate to Take Some Action. (That’s more-or-less what you’re calling for. Which, for the Senate, I think means passing something.) And nothing is happening, despite apparent gross overstep of the Executive.
In the current situation, the filibuster doesn’t do spit for the minority party. The action of the majority can be stopped. The inaction of the majority can’t.
As I see it, Republicans in the Congress have given up enforcing some basic tenets of the Constitution. Which, as with all laws, only really exist if they are enforced, or at least believed to be enforced.
I can only assume that, in exchange, this allows the Executive to do things they (Republicans in the Congress) agree with, without having to pass laws to achieve those outcomes. An ends-justify-means thing, maybe.
The moral of the story is that if the Republican Congress won’t enforce the Constitution — and I think Jan 6 made that clear — those parts of the law that would require the Congress to step up to the plate are suspended.
This is as good an explanation as any of having entered an era where any legal fig leaf will do. Hence the spate of hitherto-unrecognized national emergencies. E.g, Fentany smuggling at the Canadian border justifies a 25% tariff on Canadian metals and machinery. And if that just chops apart the North American car assembly system — except maybe Tesla — then, well, oops.
This is classic bad policy-making. And it’s what we get, with an autocrat.
Conclusion
I don’t think the Founding Fathers anticipated having a branch of government simply refuse to defend its legal prerogatives. That is, a Congress enabling the President to do as he pleases.
At the extreme, if the House won’t impeach, and the Senate won’t convict, no matter what, there can be no constitutional crisis. The flip side of which is that any law that requires enforcement by action of the Congress is effectively suspended for the duration, at the convenience of the President.
And for the minority party of the Senate, where filibuster is your main tool, I think you’re just kind of out of luck. You’ll be allotted your time to speak in public hearings. I think the Senate still functions to that extent. Beyond that, it’s a Republican Congress, they seem to be OK with this, and there’s nothing you can do to change that.
Two years of this is locked in. Plan accordingly.
