Harris' Attack on the Filibuster Is an Attack on the Constitutional Order

Though Democrats are endlessly prattling on about "norms" and "democracy," it is often unclear what aspects of the constitutional order they actually support.

This week, for example, Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated her support for suspending the legislative filibuster so that Democrats, should they eke out a slim Senate majority, can overturn thousands of state laws and force the entire country to legalize taxpayer-subsidized, late-term abortions on demand.

It is, of course, true that the filibuster isn't in the Constitution. In many ways, however, it is one of the last remaining tools upholding a semblance of constitutional order. Yet, to most contemporary Democrats, the 60-vote threshold to cut off debate is an antiquated tool that facilitates "minority rule" -- by which they mean "federalism."

Which makes sense. Democrats are keen on empowering narrow, fleeting left-wing majorities cramming through wide-ranging generational "reform" bills without any consensus. They know well that once a massive entitlement or regulatory program is passed, it will be virtually impossible to roll back.

You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to understand there's no version of the founding that envisioned this kind of governance.

Imagine, if you can, what the world would look like if former President Donald Trump announced he was going to blow up the filibuster using a one-vote Senate majority and then cram through a national limit on abortion. Republicans would be accused of acting like fascistic ghouls, and the media would have a thermonuclear meltdown. It would be 1939 Germany all over again.

Democrats play Calvinball on an All-Star level.

Worse, Democrats have targeted virtually every institution that makes "democracy" tenable in a truly diverse and sprawling nation that is home to hundreds of millions of people.

Because if forcing red states to adopt maximalist abortion laws is important enough to sink long-standing checks on federal power, you better believe it won't be the last exception to the rule.

For one thing, Republicans can't be expected to play by a different set of governing guidelines. For another, the left seems to believe every policy position it takes is fundamental to preserving "democracy."

The exemptions would be endless.

It's not just about the naked hypocrisy. It's about republic-destroying norm-breaking. "Reforming" the filibuster is part of a broader effort to create a powerful, highly centralized state.

The Supreme Court is perhaps the only institution inhibiting state overreach these days, which is why Democrats have been busy delegitimizing and now want to pack the court and transform it into another malleable partisan institution. Harris included.

The other institution somewhat tempering a direct democracy is the Electoral College. Yet, left-wing pundits are already whining about the undemocratic nature of that institution as well. It is always confusing to me when someone writes to complain that the Electoral College doesn't align with the "popular vote," as if this wasn't the entire point of the enterprise. If the two always harmonized, we wouldn't need it.

The Senate was created as a countermajoritarian institution. Now that leftists believe they have the upper hand, they are increasingly perplexed by the fact that Wyoming and California have the same number of senators.

You know, it's called the United States for a reason.

When it comes to executive abuse, Trump, who makes tons of grandiose promises that lay far outside the president's purview, is a mere piker compared to his predecessor and successor. There is a growing movement among progressive politicians and intellectuals, sometimes referred to as "popular constitutionalism," that would allow Democrats to ignore the courts whenever they choose.

It's no accident that Harris promised to confiscate guns via an executive order like some kind of dictator. Or that Biden keeps ignoring the high court and unilaterally "forgives" loans. Or that Democratic senators implore their president to declare national emergencies that would empower the White House to run the entire economy through a massive administrative state.

Perhaps Harris' position on the filibuster is a cynical play for votes. What's become undeniable, however, is that counter-constitutionalism is being normalized on the left.

Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College so that a few giant urban areas can run the executive branch.

They want to get rid of the filibuster so they can unilaterally transform the nation.

When they don't have congressional majorities, they want (their) presidents to rule by fiat.

And many now want to pack the Supreme Court to make sure no one will stop them.

There are numerous ways to describe this brand of governance, but none of them have anything to do with American norms or democracy.

========

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of five books -- the most recent, "Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent." His work has appeared in National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Reason, New York Post and numerous other publications. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

----