Allahpundit Goes Full Wonky Weasel Mode
Bill Quick

Mitch McConnell: If we take back the Senate next year, we’ll consider bringing back the filibuster for appointments « Hot Air

Remember, the filibuster still applies right now to normal legislation and to Supreme Court nominations. It’s been nuked only with respect to other presidential appointments, including lower-court appointments. That being so, there are three reasons for McConnell to bring it back.

Sigh.  Only three, AP?  Usually, when you engage in this sort of analysis, you need an squid-like number of hands – “one the third hand, on the gripping hand, on the tenth hand,” until everything dissolves in an inky cloud of options and obfuscations.

How about this:  Remove the filibuster entirely.  It is an artifact of political operators, not of the Constitution.  And Congress doesn’t need “more restraint.”  The Framers deliberately designed it to be the most powerful, by far, of the three branches of government.

The notion that Congress should to make rules to “restrain itself” is, at bottom, an argument that Congress should not exist – because if doing less is desirable, doing nothing at all is most desirable. 

If history has taught us anything, it is that (aside from remedying a few evils like slavery that the Framers were aware of, but were ultimately unable to properly address) most alterations in the government designed by the Framers and the original Constitution have not worked out well for America as a whole. 

Especially pernicious has been the weakening, over time, of the superior relationship between the Congress and the Executive, a long project embarked upon by Progressives starting with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, greatly advanced by FDR, and currently epitomized by the progressive (and likely Marxist) Barack Obama.

We’ve now reach a point that the Framers feared most: the supremacy of the Executive, personified in the person of the President, who functions as the effective tyrant of the branches.

If we need to enforce restraint on any branch of government, it would be on the bloated, out of control, rogue branch over which men like Barack Obama now preside.

Posted in Tyranny permalink
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

Allahpundit Goes Full Wonky Weasel Mode — 5 Comments

  1. The notion that Congress should to make rules to “restrain itself” is, at bottom, an argument that Congress should not exist – because if doing less is desirable, doing nothing at all is most desirable.

    If you replace “Congress” with “federal government”, you might be on to something.

    The libertarian position: it’s better to govern less

    The minarchist position: it’s best to govern not at all

      • True enough. If only most of the world were just like me, it would be a much better place. Well, I’d want two thirds of the world to female, but aside from that, just like me.

        Failing that, we can shoot for angels moving the select few to a blessed comet where everything will be wonderful because the bad people are left behind. I mean, as long as we’re talking about religions…