Check This Balance

A number of people (e.g. Al Gore) arguing for the filibuster claim it's part of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers wisely wrote into our Constitution. Having recently read the document, I can only scratch my head.

The Constitution definitely has checks and balances (though the term is never used). For instance, the federal government is split into three branches, each with their own limited powers. Also, there are two legislative houses, composed of different members (even chosen differently, originally) who have to agree before a bill is passed. And a president who can veto bills. And a legislature that can override a veto. And a judiciary that can interpret laws and even declare them unconstitutional. And a president who chooses judges and other officials--with the permission of the Senate. And a vice president who presides over the Senate. And the power to impeach. And, ultimately, keeping everyone honest, there's the voting public.

None of these checks and balances have anything to do with the filibuster. The filibuster, in effect, allows the minority to stymie the majority by preventing a bill (or, even more radically, a judicial nominee) from even being considered. Not only is this NOT part of the system of checks and balances, I'd call it something disavowed by the Constitution. Under the document, the minority may be heard, but, when a majority vote is required, there are no provisions anywhere that command the minority is allowed to prevail.

There are all sorts of political maneuverings a minority party can attempt, but when one party's been chosen to lead both the legislative and executive branches, I'm afraid the other will search the Constitution in vain for some special minority "check."