- No it is not MAD, it is rational
- The Constitution is being destroyed but Senate Republican leadership fear being labeled obstructionist by those who are destroying it.
- Having stated vociferous opposition to Obama’s executive order amnesty, and used the issue to elect Republicans, leadership now talks of funding it with a demurral.
- That isn’t good enough
Most readers will be aware of the cold war acronym that stands for a concept that has so far kept countries in possession of nuclear weapons from initiating war against one another – Mutual Assured Destruction “MAD”. It is a concept that assumes belligerents do not want to end worldly existence for themselves and their posterity. *
The term “going nuclear ” has entered the parlance of American politics with regard to any action that supposedly will come back to haunt the perpetrator as much as they intended to dominate political opponents. It assumes that the initial victimized party will eventually be in power to return the favor. As regards the U.S. Senate, the nuclear option is identified with changing Senate debate rules.
The Constitution allows each chamber to make its own rules as to what is required to emit legislation. The filibuster is the Senate rule that used to generally allow a minority of Senators (currently 40) to stop action indefinitely on any matter on the floor or in committee. When exercised it forces a super majority of 60 to obtain passage for any filibustered bill. However the Constitution does require a super majority of two thirds or 67 to overcome a veto of the President. An interesting history of the filibuster is explained in this Ezra Klein article from the Washington Post back in 2010.
In 2013 then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option by seeing to changing Senate rules as regards presidential appointments and judicial nominees, other than for the Supreme Court, to a bare majority vote. That maneuver served to end any Republican filibuster actions to prevent expanding and packing the particularly important 10th Circuit “DC” Court of Appeals. Democrat discipline held and that court is now safely liberal.
But now Republicans are in the majority and possess the power to return the favor. As important as the Democrats thought getting Obama’s nominees approved and installed ensconced, Republicans are faced with the compelling matter of stopping the implementation of Obama’s unconstitutional executive order amnesty for illegal immigrants. His actions if implemented can’t be walked back, and the implications to a constitutional republic of allowing such overreach are profound.
Obama’s unconstitutional orders are implemented through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The conservative intent is to use the constitutionally authorized power of the purse to deny funding for implementation of the unconstitutional part and fund the rest of the DHS functions. Except Democrats are filibustering the Republican majority efforts and holding up general DHS funding which is about to expire.
Like all measures passed by Congress a measure can be vetoed by the President thus triggering the need for a super majority of 2/3 present and voting in each chamber for passage. That is understood. In the case at hand there are not likely enough Democrats willing to protect the prerogatives of Congress and stand up for the rule of law so it is likely Obama’s threatened veto will be sustained. ** So if either way Obama is sustained, why worry about 60 when getting to 67 just in the Senate is not at all likely?
Unfortunately Republican Senate “leadership” is letting even the threat of a veto on this issue consign them to minority status in spite of Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. And in spite of campaigning in hard core opposition to Obama’s actions. If they agree to a so called “clean bill” (one without restrictions on his amnesty executive orders) albeit with a subsequent vote on a bill to restrict funding that is not likely to pass with 60 votes, they are willing to make themselves part of the irreversible implementation and unconstitutionality of Obama’s executive orders. Incredibly, the appearances and implications of that somehow they don’t fear.
Unless more parliamentary maneuvering can be undertaken as a consequence, talk of separate votes, unrestricted full funding with a separate vote on restricting funding does not protect the Constitution or congressional prerogatives. Obama is already maneuvering around if not defying the recent lower court’s temporary injunction against his actions, instructing DHS personnel to do what they are told by him.
Taken at their word it is not like the Senate rules are protecting minority views in this case at the level contemplated by the rule. We are told there are sufficient Democrats (added to the 54 Republicans) enough to overcome a filibuster, that have said they object to Obama’s executive orders. But Democrat party discipline is holding for now, while Republicans are waffling. Democrats are succeeding at making Republicans part of this atrocity or being exposed as entirely inept at hardball.
Getting back to the concept of MAD it is our belief that MAD was not really about tit for tat exchanges, it was about “if you start it we will end it.” And Republicans should. The filibuster should be ended using the process Reid endorsed, implemented, and would complete on anything he found important.
Republican leadership are worried about blame. Even though there was no sting to it in the last election from so called previous “shut downs” of government. We are worried about the country. But if they are worried about blame, ending the filibuster serves to focus blame on the recalcitrant Obama. At that point he will be standing in the way of fully funding DHS while insisting on budget busting immigration amnesty. As a veto is sustained he is exposed as the culprit in immigration amnesty and the expanded welfare costs, not Republicans, which is “leadership’s” supposedly primary concern.
The tactic turns Saul Alinsky’s rules for Radicals back on Democrats
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Charles Krauthammer has called for ending the filibuster as has Senator Shelby a ranking Republican. We commend their more succinct advocacy to you.
Charles Krauthammer: Reid showed the way to end the filibuster
Shelby Backs Abolishing Filibuster To Break DHS Impasse
Gary Bauer writing at Campaign for Working Families seems to endorse doing so as well.
More reading on the subject is available from the links below.
Senate.gov – Filibuster and Cloture
RedState — Senate Democrats have done what Harry Reid said would be the end of the Senate — Democrats lie like Obama then nuke the filibuster
Ezra Klein — How to end the filibuster
R Mall
* Certain countries run by Islamic maniacs and in danger of developing nuclear weapons excepted.
* * It is beyond the scope of this discussion to get into how Obama can spend money Congress has not appropriated period and what further recourse constitutional Republicans have.
