United Liberty

Though this was written before the Health Care Summit between Democrats and Republicans, George Will defense of the filibuster as a sound constitutional principle needed to be posted:

Some liberals argue that the Constitution is unconstitutional. Their reasoning is a non sequitur: The Constitution empowers each chamber to “determine the rules of its proceedings.” It requires five supermajorities (for ratifying treaties, endorsing constitutional amendments, overriding vetoes, expelling members and impeachment convictions). Therefore it does not permit requiring a sixth, to end filibusters.
[…]
“Great innovations,” said Jefferson, “should not be forced on slender majorities.” Hence Barack Obama recently embraced a supermajority mechanism: The 18-member commission he created to recommend measures to reduce the deficit requires that any recommendation be endorsed by 14 members.

Filibusters are devices for registering intensity rather than mere numbers — government by adding machine. Besides, has a filibuster ever prevented eventual enactment of anything significant that an American majority has desired, strongly and protractedly?

Americans have long looked to the Supreme Court as the last bastion of their liberties and as the one institution that stands as a check against the encroachments of an Executive Branch eager to expand its power and and a Legislative Branch intent on satisfying the whims of a grasping majority. As Robert Levy and William Mellor demonstrate in their must-read book The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom, that is far from the truth. In reality, and especially in the 3/4 of a century since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has essentially stood by while the Federal Government, and the states, whittle away at long cherished American liberties.

A discussion on the Constitution is one which could consume much time. It’s late on a Friday night, but I wanted to get a few thoughts on out this subject. Lately, I’ve reflected a bit when I’ve heard comments about the Bill of Rights, our (the citizens) Constitutional rights, government authority, and so on.

I’ve found that even the most staunch advocates of “conservatism” and “small government” often speak of things such as the First Amendment as if the Constitution itself, and on behalf of the government, grants us rights. This is in direct conflict with the Declaration of Independence, and, to the best of my knowledge, the intent of the authors. I have both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers in my reading queue, but consider the Declaration itself: