Joe Lieberman, shame on you
I generally have a great deal of respect for Joe Lieberman, so when I came across these two separate speeches, given almost a decade apart, I was deeply disappointed in the rank partisanship from a politician who is usually better than this. First, from the Congressional Record, January 4, 1995, on the amendment to Senate rules to do away with the filibuster in the Senate (keep in mind, this was just after the 1994 midterm elections, when Republicans took control of both the House of Representatives and Senate):
"It is important now to make this effort to show that we have heard the message and that we are prepared to not only shake up the Federal Government but shake up the Congress. And not just for the sake of shaking it up, but because of a fundamental principle that is basic to our democracy, that is deep into the deliberations of the Framers of our Constitution and appears throughout the Federalist Papers, which is rule of the majority in the legislative body. It is this majority rule has been frustrated by the existing filibuster rule. So I am privileged to join as a cosponsor with my colleague from Iowa in this effort.
"Mr. President, whenever I explain to my constituents at home in Connecticut that a minority of Senators can by a mere threat of a filibuster --not even by the continuous debate, but by a mere threat of a filibuster --kill a bill on the Senate floor, they are incredulous. When I tell them that now as a matter of course a Senator needs to obtain 60 votes in order to pass a bill to which there is opposition, frankly, the folks back home are suspicious. . . .
"For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate.
"The Framers of the Constitution, this great fundamental, organic American document considered on which kinds of votes, on which issues the will of the majority would not be enough, that a vote of more than a majority would be required, and the Constitution has spelled those instances out quite clearly. Only five areas: Ratification of a treaty requires more than a majority of the Senate; override by the Senate of a Presidential veto requires more than a majority; a vote of impeachment requires more than a majority; passage of a constitutional amendment requires more than a majority; and the expulsion of a Member of Congress requires more than a majority.
"The Framers actually considered the wisdom of requiring supermajorities for other matters and rejected them.
"So it seems to me to be inconsistent with the Constitution that this body, by its rules, has essentially amended the Constitution to require 60 votes to pass any issue on which Members choose to filibuster or threaten to filibuster.
"The Framers, I think, understood--more than understood--expressed through the Constitution and their deliberations and their writings, that the Congress was to be a body in which the majority would rule." [Emphases added.]
Joe Lieberman, in a press release from April 6, 2005, now supports the filibuster wholeheartedly:
“I am standing with my fellow Democrats in the Senate against the Republican nuclear option to ban the requirement for bipartisan majorities because I want to ensure judges appointed for life have bipartisan support and to ensure important legislation and rulings are upheld,” Lieberman said. “I am standing up to save the filibuster because it is vital to moderate, bipartisan government. That was the vision of our founding fathers and the spirit of our constitutional government.” [Emphasis added.]
Seriously, Joe. Today the filibuster is "the vision of our founding fathers and the spirit of our constitutional government," yet a decade ago the filibuster was "inconsistent with the Constitution," and "the Framers . . . expressed through the Constitution and their deliberations and writings, that the Congress was to be a body in which the majority would rule"? You even claimed that the Senate had amended the Constitution by its own rules in allowing the filibuster.
These are not the comments of a statesman. They are pandering to a political base. It's a shame a fine man has stooped so low.
UPDATE: Thanks to Lance at Ragged Edges for the link and the additional research.
"It is important now to make this effort to show that we have heard the message and that we are prepared to not only shake up the Federal Government but shake up the Congress. And not just for the sake of shaking it up, but because of a fundamental principle that is basic to our democracy, that is deep into the deliberations of the Framers of our Constitution and appears throughout the Federalist Papers, which is rule of the majority in the legislative body. It is this majority rule has been frustrated by the existing filibuster rule. So I am privileged to join as a cosponsor with my colleague from Iowa in this effort.
"Mr. President, whenever I explain to my constituents at home in Connecticut that a minority of Senators can by a mere threat of a filibuster --not even by the continuous debate, but by a mere threat of a filibuster --kill a bill on the Senate floor, they are incredulous. When I tell them that now as a matter of course a Senator needs to obtain 60 votes in order to pass a bill to which there is opposition, frankly, the folks back home are suspicious. . . .
"For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it. We impose it on ourselves. And if I may say so respectfully, it is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution, one might almost say an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate.
"The Framers of the Constitution, this great fundamental, organic American document considered on which kinds of votes, on which issues the will of the majority would not be enough, that a vote of more than a majority would be required, and the Constitution has spelled those instances out quite clearly. Only five areas: Ratification of a treaty requires more than a majority of the Senate; override by the Senate of a Presidential veto requires more than a majority; a vote of impeachment requires more than a majority; passage of a constitutional amendment requires more than a majority; and the expulsion of a Member of Congress requires more than a majority.
"The Framers actually considered the wisdom of requiring supermajorities for other matters and rejected them.
"So it seems to me to be inconsistent with the Constitution that this body, by its rules, has essentially amended the Constitution to require 60 votes to pass any issue on which Members choose to filibuster or threaten to filibuster.
"The Framers, I think, understood--more than understood--expressed through the Constitution and their deliberations and their writings, that the Congress was to be a body in which the majority would rule." [Emphases added.]
Joe Lieberman, in a press release from April 6, 2005, now supports the filibuster wholeheartedly:
“I am standing with my fellow Democrats in the Senate against the Republican nuclear option to ban the requirement for bipartisan majorities because I want to ensure judges appointed for life have bipartisan support and to ensure important legislation and rulings are upheld,” Lieberman said. “I am standing up to save the filibuster because it is vital to moderate, bipartisan government. That was the vision of our founding fathers and the spirit of our constitutional government.” [Emphasis added.]
Seriously, Joe. Today the filibuster is "the vision of our founding fathers and the spirit of our constitutional government," yet a decade ago the filibuster was "inconsistent with the Constitution," and "the Framers . . . expressed through the Constitution and their deliberations and writings, that the Congress was to be a body in which the majority would rule"? You even claimed that the Senate had amended the Constitution by its own rules in allowing the filibuster.
These are not the comments of a statesman. They are pandering to a political base. It's a shame a fine man has stooped so low.
UPDATE: Thanks to Lance at Ragged Edges for the link and the additional research.
posted by Hal | 4:31 PM
1 Comments:
Once again, nice work. I've posted a link to both posts (Lieberman, NYT) on my site.
Post a Comment
<< Home