Weekly Opinion Editorial
SHOWBOAT OR PATRIOT?
by Steve Fair
A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where
debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay the vote on a bill or
issue. It is sometimes called, “talking
out a bill,” and is considered a form of obstruction in a legislative
body. Most Americans know about the filibuster from the movie, "Mr Smith goes to Washington."
Clare Boothe Luce, the first women appointed to a major
ambassadorial post and the wife of the publisher of Time magazine, said about
the filibuster; “They say women talk too
much. If you worked in Congress you know
that the filibuster was invented by men.”
The elimination of the filibuster in Congress has been debated for years, but it always
stays intact because the majority Party recognizes that at some point they
could be the minority Party and they may need it in their tool box.
Last week, Senator Rand Paul, (R-Kentucky), launched a
talking filibuster to stall John Brennan’s confirmation vote for the position
of Director of the CIA. Paul demanded an
answer to the question "Should a President be allowed to target, and kill
an American by drone attack, on American soil, without due process?"
Paul’s question was in response to comments from Attorney General Eric Holder
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When Senator Ted Cruz, (R-Texas), asked
Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American
terror suspect who was simply 'sitting at a cafe' . Holder said it was, in his opinion,
constitutional, but he could only seeing it happen in the most extreme of
circumstances.
Senators Paul, Cruz, Scott, Rubio, and eleven others held
the floor of the Senate for thirteen(13) hours until Paul’s bladder could stand
no more and he yielded the floor. One of
those who commended Paul for filibusting was Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, (R-Kentucky). McConnell faces
re-election next year and that could be one of the reasons he spoke.
As expected, John Brennan was
confirmed as Director of the CIA, however Paul believed his question was
relevant since Brennan is considered to be the main architect of the unmanned
drone program used by the U.S.
government.
So was the filibuster a stunt or was it an act of patriotism? I believe it was the later and here is why:
First, Paul was successful in getting the media to cover the real issue- potential drone attacks in the US on Americans. While McCain and Graham may not believe the government would ever think of using drones against their own citizens, how many events and misuses of governmental authority have transpired in our country in recent years we never thought possible? And after Holder’s comments to Congress, why wouldn’t it be possible?
Second, the filibuster and the pressure from the general
public forced Holder to clarify the administration’s position on drone
use. Holder sent a letter stating: "It has come to my attention that you
have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority
to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American
soil.' The answer to that question is no." If Paul would not have filibustered, then the ambiguity of
Third, the filibuster revealed that some of the newly
elected younger Republican Senators will not be content to sit in the back of
the room and wait their turn. They have
the ironrail up the shirttail to take on the administration and bad policy.
There may be hope for America yet. Thanks Senator Jefferson Smith- I mean Rand
Paul- for reminding us that one person can make a difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment