The Corner

A Shy Question About Constitutional Intent

Look, I have a BFA in Television from NYU, and while I would be proud

to show you the paper I wrote on the merits of “Remington Steele,” I

am a bit embarrassed about the shallowness of my book-learning.

(Meanwhile, I was in the legendary Rick Rubin’s dorm room as he

invented Def Jam Records.)

My question is: did the framers realize (or plan, even) that the

60-vote cut-off-the-debate rule would allow for the occasional need

for a super-majority? Is this even in the Constitution, or is it like

a little-known codicil in the Faber charter allowing for double-secret

probation?

My point is: here’s what I hate about basketball. In the waning

moments of a game, a team may realize they have a “foul to give,’

meaning that they can foul the opposing team without suffering any

penalty. In fact, the “foul to give” can provide the offending team

with an advantage as it costs the other team seconds off the clock and

court position, since the next play begins with an inbounds pass. It

just seems wrong that manipulating a loophole in the rules should

provide any advantage.

Warren BellWarren Bell was nominated June 20, 2006, by President George W. Bush to be a member of the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for the remainder of a ...

Recommended

The Latest