- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Please let's hear all the details.
Oh, I have researched the answer. And my research concludes that the Founding Fathers didn't inherently cherish the procedure of filibusters. Which makes me wonder why you even mention the Founding Fathers with regards to the filibuster.
That is certainly the case. However, that does not defend the Senate's right to delay the passage of legislation using the filibuster.
So please explain to everyone here why it's a good thing for one Senator to be able to hold the rest of the Senate hostage.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the fillibuster didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers? The checks were built into the branches and the bi-cameral legislative structure. Within the houses themselves, I'm pretty sure the rule was the majority decides, plain and simple.Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster? - FoxNews.com
And the Progressive's destruction of America and it's founders' intentions continues... When will it end?
Some Senate Democrats to try to change filibuster rules in new Congress – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com BlogsUdall is considering four key proposals as part of the resolution he will offer. One would prevent filibusters to taking up a bill or on a nomination, although it will still allow filibusters to end debate on a bill. A second would eliminate so-called "secret holds" in which a senator can anonymously stall legislation or a nomination from coming to the floor. A third would require senators leading a filibuster stay on the floor and debate the issue during the entire filibuster. A fourth proposal from Udall is aimed at appeasing GOP concerns about being locked out of the process. It would require a certain number of amendments for the minority party for any bill being debated.
Lobbyists are a fantastic tool for democracy. People are just too short-minded to consider all of the groups that agree with each individual issue who continue to bring awareness to their representatives the importance of a certain policy stance.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the fillibuster didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers? The checks were built into the branches and the bi-cameral legislative structure. Within the houses themselves, I'm pretty sure the rule was the majority decides, plain and simple.
Wikipedia said:In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter." Other Senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.
Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[3] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.
The founding fathers intended for the States to pick the Senators and the Lobbyists to keep their grubby hands off our representatives. Everything since then has been a mockery of democracy and nudging closer to fascism. Until we have representation again I'm for anything that slows down the lobbyists.
How does a supermajority "slow down the lobbyists"? That assumes that lobbyists always prefer action to inaction. In some cases (telecom being a prime example), doing nothing is exactly what the lobbyists want, so a supermajority actually helps them.
I'm not advocating getting rid of lobbyists. I am advocating giving the people one house of congress where the most important relationship is between the congressman and his constituents. Right now we have a redundant bicameral congress where both houses advocate what their donors tell them. This is aristocracy for the benefit of those with access. So once again, if a weird rule serves to slow down that aristocracy I'm all for it.
The Europeans system is far less perfect.
It's like this, the real go-gitters in Europe all came to America. That's why Americans are superior to every other country in the world.
That is debatable. And while European systems may be far less perfect you've 1) admitted that the America system is not perfect either and 2) you have yet to explain how importing any procedure from Europe would inherently make the American system less perfect.
How many countries in Europe are cocked up 9 ways from Sunday, right now?
Okay.
So Europeans have popular elections in their countries.
So does that mean you want to get rid of popular elections here in the U.S.?
Gee, where did that come from?
Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster? - FoxNews.com
And the Progressive's destruction of America and it's founders' intentions continues... When will it end?
I was actually referring to other things the Progressives have done to undermine the founders without actually listing them. Take the 17th amendment for example.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?