Furthermore, Art. I, Sec. 5, provides the sole description of how the House and the Senate are to do business:

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

No where in that am I seeing anything about how, in Yglesias’s words,

But since the Founding Fathers did specify supermajorities to override a Presidential veto and to ratify a treaty, presumably there would have written a supermajority rule into the ordinary legislative process if that’s what they’d wanted to do.

Um, the second clause sort of seems to answer that: if the Senate has a filibuster rule, then it passes Constitutional muster; moreover, as Gregg points out, that particular rule advances the desires of the Framers to have some deliberation.

So Harvard-educated Yglesias gets smacked down by his own inability to google “Article I”. Then again, it’s always entertaining to see liberals who are so wrapped up in their intellect and genius that they fail to see that they are, in fact, acting like idiots.

Furthermore, Art. I, Sec. 5, provides the sole description of how the House and the Senate are to do business:

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

No where in that am I seeing anything about how, in Yglesias’s words,

But since the Founding Fathers did specify supermajorities to override a Presidential veto and to ratify a treaty, presumably there would have written a supermajority rule into the ordinary legislative process if that’s what they’d wanted to do.

Um, the second clause sort of seems to answer that: if the Senate has a filibuster rule, then it passes Constitutional muster; moreover, as Gregg points out, that particular rule advances the desires of the Framers to have some deliberation.

So Harvard-educated Yglesias gets smacked down by his own inability to google “Article I”. Then again, it’s always entertaining to see liberals who are so wrapped up in their intellect and genius that they fail to see that they are, in fact, acting like idiots.