Is the filibuster unconstitutional?

I have been pondering this thought for sometime. In the US Senate they have this rule which slows down the legislative process or completely destroys legislation, good or bad. Here is the definition of a filibuster.

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.

Take note, it is not a law nor is it a 'formal' term. Also take note of " or by any other delaying or obstructive actions." Basically what a filibuster does is give a Senator or party a stranglehold over the legislative process. Now in the Senate it requires a super-majority of Senators to kill a filibuster, 60 votes. You see, actual legislation requires a simple majority of 50+1. To bring it to a vote, you need 60. Now, this of course seems to make no sense, unless you are the Republic Party. There is no law that allows for a filibuster, just a 'rule' of the Senate. So if this is the case, then how does this happen? Well, because there is no law against it, they can do whatever they like, unless it's unconstitutional. This brings me to Article 1 of the US Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Lets look at the phrase, promote the general Welfare. Constitutional, the Senate has a constitutional obligation to address issues such as Health Reform since it would fall under the 'promote the general Welfare' clause. Having a filibuster would indeed violate the spirit of the constitution, would it not? The intent of the founders was to have a simple majority rule for legislation. The House is already an odd number, 437. The Senate at 100 and the Vice President votes if there is a tie. The filibuster rule violates the intent on having a simple majority vote up and down. It actually prevents the Senate from following their constitutional obligations a simple up and down majority vote. Ergo, the filibuster is unconstitutional.

You see, the intent of the constitution is to provide us with safeguards and to allow for laws to be enacted that promote the public welfare. Sure the Dem's are in the majority, but that is because the people elected them to be there. There are times when the Republic Party is in power and they too must answer the same call. This is what a representative democracy is all about. The ebb and flow of public needs and who is best qualified to serve them. As it stands now, there is no chance of getting legislation to the floor for a vote if one person or party refuses to allow it to happen. This is not the democracy we signed on for.

If there are any lawyers out there and want to make a name for themselves, I would suggest taking the government to court over this issue and let the Supreme Court decide once and for all.

Try this: http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html