The non-nuclear option

Mitch McConnell is making noises about reinstating the filibuster should the GOP recapture the Senate, an idea which does not sit well with Bill Quick:

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.

And there’s always the question of why anyone thinks the Republicans will somehow ride their imagined Senate results into some sort of Chuck Norris mode, given the presence of squishes like, well, Mitch McConnell.


  1. McGehee »

    6 March 2014 · 8:32 am

    It isn’t a question of more restraint or less, it’s a question of where its restraint is aimed and where it is not.

    Congress has two roles: to enact laws, and to restrain the executive. It needs restraint in the former, because we have too many laws, and more energy in the latter.

    To the extent Congress is unrestrained against the executive, it is a force for liberty; when it unrestrained against the people, it is a font of tyranny.

  2. Mark Alger »

    8 March 2014 · 4:34 pm

    McConnell isn’t going to be in the Senate next Congress, so there’s nothing to worry about.

    Nevertheless, his notion of an activist, busybody Congress is nauseating.


RSS feed for comments on this post