Demagoguing the filibuster debate

Excellent op/ed by Charles Fried in the Boston Globe today

Demagoguing the filibuster debate: "The Constitution does not say one word about filibusters, but it does state that ''each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.' Does it speak by implication? In the case of impeachments ''no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members' of the Senate. Either house may expel a member for disorderly behavior but only with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of that house. Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the senators present. The president's veto may be overridden by two-thirds of each house. And to propose amendments to the Constitution, two thirds of both houses are necessary. It is therefore a fair inference that, unless another voting rule is prescribed, in all other cases only a simple majority is required. And no other rule is prescribed for the voting on each house's rules. To say that in a democracy majority rule is at least the default rule is hardly wild speculation."