Pssst! The Word "Filibuster" Does Not Appear InThe Constitution
In this week's Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol writes, " ...the filibuster is nowhere mentioned, or even implied, in the text of the Constitution."!!! With all the yapping from the Democrats lately, this fact seems unbelievable. But it is true. Sharing expertise from David A.Crockett of Trinity College in San Antonio, Kristol does a great job of separating the duties of the legislature and the judiciary. Here's an excerpt.
There is no rationale for a filibuster, however, when the Senate is acting under Article 2 in advising and consenting to presidential nominations. As Crockett points out, here the president is 'the originator and prime mover. If he wants to make the process more burdensome, perhaps through lengthy interviews or extraordinary background checks, he can.' The Senate's role is to accept or reject the president's nominees, just as the president has a responsibility to accept or reject a bill approved by both houses of Congress. There he does not have the option of delay. Nor should Congress have the option of delay in what is fundamentally an executive function of filling the nonelected positions in the federal government. In other words--to quote Crockett once more--'it is inappropriate for the Senate to employ a delaying tactic normally used in internal business--the construction of legislation--in a nonlegislative procedure that originates in a coequal branch of government.'Aaahhh!! Check out the rest of Bill's piece and the issue will become as Kristol-clear to you as it is now to me!