Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) has been arguing of late that the rules governing the Senate filibuster should be changed, even though he graciously agrees that the Senate should continue to be required to take into consideration the views of the minority.
But while Manchin thinks filibustering should be harder (he says ‘more painful’) to use, the opposite it true. The change needed is that instead of requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster, the number should be much higher: 67, or 75, or even 90.
This is, after all, a numbers game, and the number they’re looking for is the answer to this question: On a given issue, how big a majority should be required to screw the minority?
Of course, the answer from the Declaration of Independence is that no majority is large enough, because governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from majority rule. So really, the number of votes required to end a filibuster should be all of them.
There is an interesting relationship between the ‘need’ for the Senate to get something done, even if it means alienating the inalienable rights of the people; and the ‘need’ for the police to complete an arrest, even if it means killing a person who is only suspected of committing a crime.
In both cases, what is required is a tactical withdrawal — to avoid doing anything until you can find a way to do something without violating the rights of the people you’re going to do it to. And it’s precisely to reveal the need for such a tactical withdrawal that the filibuster exists.
But — to paraphrase productivity guru Stephen Covey — both the legislature and the police have become accustomed to allowing what seems urgent (passing a bill, taking someone into custody) to blind them to what is essential (protecting the rights of the people).
Related:
