- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Really? Then why would they add the ability to filibuster at all? To the contrary of your veiwpoint, I think this is exactly want the founders wanted. The whole point of the senate, why only 1/3 are elected ever 2 years and having the ability to filibuster is so that the senate would govern from the center, rather than like the house which may only govern over the 50.1% of the nation.To force bills to pass on a 60 vote line is just contrary to what the founding fathers wanted, and to the concept of democracy. But that's just my thoughts. What do you all think?
Really? Then why would they add the ability to filibuster at all? To the contrary of your veiwpoint, I think this is exactly want the founders wanted. The whole point of the senate, why only 1/3 are elected ever 2 years and having the ability to filibuster is so that the senate would govern from the center, rather than like the house which may only govern over the 50.1% of the nation.
In any Congress, regardless of which party has the majority, thank God for the filibuster.
Merely having a majority does not make anyone automatically correct. Merely having a majority does not ensure all their ideas are good. Merely having a majority does not guarantee bills are sound legislation.
The filibuster rules of the Senate, and the effective 60-vote supermajority needed to bring any legislation to a final vote, is an effective brake on the system. It has proven most useful in giving Congress time to pause on the punitive AIG-tax bill which bludgeoned its way through the House of Representatives.
I, for one, am glad Senators have a mechanism for slowing down the process. The slower the process the fewer laws; this is a good thing.
Anything that gums up the workings of Congress can hardly be said to go against the concept of American Democracy.It could just as easily be used to stop someone trying to roll laws back though, it is a two edged sword. And don't forget, it goes against the concept of American Democracy.
The Founding Fathers gave each House the power to decide for itself what the regular order of affairs should be. The Founding Fathers may not have written the filibuster into the Constitution, but the license granted each House to set its own rules renders the point moot. The filibuster in the Senate is part of the rules devised by the Senate, in accordance with the powers and privileges granted each House of Congress per the Constitution.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.
Anything that gums up the workings of Congress can hardly be said to go against the concept of American Democracy.
However, my own skepticism of Congress notwithstanding, the filibuster is very much in keeping with the concept of American Democracy. It is very much in accordance with the Constitution, Article I, Section 5:
The Founding Fathers gave each House the power to decide for itself what the regular order of affairs should be. The Founding Fathers may not have written the filibuster into the Constitution, but the license granted each House to set its own rules renders the point moot. The filibuster in the Senate is part of the rules devised by the Senate, in accordance with the powers and privileges granted each House of Congress per the Constitution.
I wonder if the senate would filibuster a filibuster bill
The Founding Fathers opted to give each House of Congress the power to write its own rules of order; in effect, they gave each House the power to decide the matter. The "spirit" of the Constitution is that each House establish its own rules of regular order--and thus the Senate has the filibuster.I'm not saying the filibuster goes against the rules of the constitution. But it does go against the spirit of the constitution, and the wishes of the founding fathers. If they had wanted a 3/5 majority on every bill, they would have written the constitution that way. Can you really give me a good reason, other than that if helps your agenda, that the filibuster should be kept?
Actually, the fillibuster is exactly in the spirit of the constitution. The founding fathers were not all of one mind when the constitution was ratified and some of the most heated political debate came from the very writing of our constitution, that process was based upon argument and concession, the fillibuster is merely a stalling tactic to see who can outlast it to get their bill passed, and I wouldn't have it any other way as I see the best thing for us is a congress too deadlocked to do anything to us in the form of unsuitable legislation. The best reason to keep the fillibuster is to prevent majority rule, which is not our system of governance, whether I agree with the side being fillibustered or not I prefer to have multiple opinions with the appropriate checks and balances, plus, there have historically been some hilarious uses of the fillibuster such as reading the phone book and other ridiculous stalls, it's high comedy at it's best.I'm not saying the filibuster goes against the rules of the constitution. But it does go against the spirit of the constitution, and the wishes of the founding fathers. If they had wanted a 3/5 majority on every bill, they would have written the constitution that way. Can you really give me a good reason, other than that if helps your agenda, that the filibuster should be kept?
We had the same kind of thread pop up in the past I believe when it was a majority republican senate.
No, as we've seen under Bush and we're seeing again under Obama having one party dominate all three houses is incredibly dangerous for America as it allows for the very fabric of it to be changed drastically and monumnetally with absolutely no recourse. The Fillibuster is essential for minority rights and should remain, be it Dem or a Rep controlled congress.
Frankly, I have a good laugh at ANY democrat that sat on this forum for the past few years and never ONCE uttered a PEEP about fillibuster being a problem NOW amazingly showing up and saying we need to get rid of it.
Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate. They've imposed a de facto 60 vote thresh hold to get anything passed. Now I'm sympathetic to the filibuster as a last ditch measure in extreme cases, but using it on a constant basis like this? I don't care which side is doing it, if it's being abused to this point, it needs to be cut. Now I know that as a Democrat, I'd be removing an important tool from our arsenal when we're in the minority, but something needs to be done, as I see it. The constitution only requires a super-majority on a few items, such as impeachments. To force bills to pass on a 60 vote line is just contrary to what the founding fathers wanted, and to the concept of democracy. But that's just my thoughts. What do you all think?
As a note too, and this may draw some thanks away from me ; )
I laugh about it not necessarily because they're doing it ONLY because they want Republicans not to have it now, but because that likely means that this being a "problem" had never crossed their mind for years and now they've "suddenly" realized it. That makes me think that, in reality, consiously or subconsiously the issue for them isn't so much the filibuster as it is the filibuster causing what THEY see as "progress" from happening.
Refering back to my original point where I stated it'd make me laugh a bit seeing liberals on this board that never made a peep about the filibuster rules during the previous administration but now are saying something. That's who the post was refering to with the second one explaining why they may now "just now" be coming to the thought other than just pure partisanship.
For example, Hobo has routinely seemed a level headed objective guy. He's most assuredly liberal from all I've seen, and makes no appologizes for it, and while I disagree with him ideologically he'll at least look and discuss issues legitimately. So him saying this makes me initially think its more that the fact that he's now seeing things HE believes are "progress" for this country being blocked by this that its making him possibly come to "realize" that the filibuster is an issue.
This is different from some liberals who I believe would push for the removal of the filibuster now simply because Democrats are in power so its okay to get rid of it, but they'd secretly want it back immedietely come the Rep's regaining power.
So my second post was more just explaining that the end of my initial post wasn't insinuating that only hyper partisan liberals would just now think of removing it.
I am curious who this "they" are? I see that people like Hobo may take issue to this but have seen no news that politicians are talking about it, am I missing something here?
This is a tactic carried over from the Dems when they were the minority, especially under the Bush administration.Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate. They've imposed a de facto 60 vote thresh hold to get anything passed.
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?