- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I'm sorry, what specifically are you looking at?
Again, the way the founders argued, sometimes resulting in fatality(dueling) and the heated debates that formed the founding document, they would probably give the fillibuster a thumbs up, but that is just a guess on my part.
To form my opinion on the fillibuster? If that's the question, the history of our founding is what I am looking at, let's face it, even in the beginning there was harsh debate, much more impassioned than we have today, and the fillibuster has been in effect for most of our history, the way to shut down a railroading by a majority is to stop a vote from happening. The senate, with the appropriate amount of votes could end the fillibuster tomorrow, but I believe that would be both hypocritical and foolish, the hypocracy would come from removing the very thing they used to log jam Republican issues now that they have the majority, the foolish part comes from the fact that Democrat approval ratings are dropping at alarming rates, and that could make them a minority in 2010 or 12, so they would be at a severe disadvantage in the coming years. This is the final thought, and why I feel the filliibuster is in line with our founding values, being that debates were so heated back then, and that the founders always wanted the majority to have a sincere debate before coming to any decisions, we have a simple logical exercise that would dictate that the founders would be pretty proud of the fillibuster.I'm sorry, what specifically are you looking at?
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.
That's true, fillibusters were much longer.....and more hilarious when it was a newer tactic, today it's just a rambling mess.It looks like the filibustering has been too weak, not too severe. They did a quick job of railroading the bailouts and other devastating expenditures through with no meaningful opposition.
The founding fathers didn't add the filibuster. They clearly wrote in the constitution that all votes would be on a clear majority, with a few exceptions like impeachments or constitutional clearly defined. The filibuster was an unintentional loophole written into the senate rules. It wasn't even used till 1841, quite a bit after the founding fathers. In other words, it is not what the founding fathers wanted, and not in the constitution. I don't know where you got your info about filibustering from, but its crap.
I think they were opposed to it if I remember correctly.They also didn't write in a party system.
I think they were opposed to it if I remember correctly.
This is your problem: you think the filibuster is used to have a "sincere debate". It's almost never used to ensure debate anymore, it's used as an obstructionist tactic.This is the final thought, and why I feel the filliibuster is in line with our founding values, being that debates were so heated back then, and that the founders always wanted the majority to have a sincere debate before coming to any decisions, we have a simple logical exercise that would dictate that the founders would be pretty proud of the fillibuster.
This is your problem: you think the filibuster is used to have a "sincere debate". It's almost never used to ensure debate anymore, it's used as an obstructionist tactic.
True, although I think that the party control was tightened up a few decades later.Washington was. I don't think we can really say Adams and Jefferson were, seeing as they started political parties.
I fully realize it's an obstruction tactic, never claimed otherwise. To obstruct debate is to argue, which is what the founders did alot, much more so than we do even today, which is my point, when debate leads to something of consequence the fillibuster is there to stop it, whether that consequence is getting a majority upon minority beatdown, an expansion of the government that the majority party wants, more tax powers, etc.This is your problem: you think the filibuster is used to have a "sincere debate". It's almost never used to ensure debate anymore, it's used as an obstructionist tactic.
If the majority party decides to exclude the minority from open debates and inclusion in the legislative process as has been recently happening, then the filibuster serves a useful purpose.
The biggest concern for all of us as citizens is the tyranny of the majority is it not?
I am sure when the shoe is on the other foot with Republican majorities and control of both houses of Congress and the White House; you thought filibustering was a good idea.
True, although I think that the party control was tightened up a few decades later.
I fully realize it's an obstruction tactic, never claimed otherwise. To obstruct debate is to argue, which is what the founders did alot, much more so than we do even today, which is my point, when debate leads to something of consequence the fillibuster is there to stop it, whether that consequence is getting a majority upon minority beatdown, an expansion of the government that the majority party wants, more tax powers, etc.
Wait, the filibuster is there to stop something from happening, and this is good for debate? I didn't understand your paragraph very well.
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?
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.
I'll expand, when the debate is one sided and the result is undesireable, then yes, that is what the fillibuster is intended to derail, think of it as a check to groupthink.Wait, the filibuster is there to stop something from happening, and this is good for debate? I didn't understand your paragraph very well.
I really laughed hard at this particular line of thought. Out of all the injustices performed daily by our government, the notion that the use of the filibuster would even be in the top 100 of what the founders would be mad about is absolute hilarity.
This is just too rich for words. If they wanted to commerce clause to be as powerful as it has become, they would of written it that way. If they wanted the bill of rights to be incorporated, they would of written it that way. The entire progressive movement is a contradiction of what the founders – and more importantly, the ratifiers of this legal document wanted.
I'll expand, when the debate is one sided and the result is undesireable, then yes, that is what the fillibuster is intended to derail, think of it as a check to groupthink.
And this is directly relevent, how?
This is true, however the consequences extend past hurt feelings, whenever the government does something "for someone" it must do something to someone else, thus expanding itself past what it was ever meant to be, stopping that is a just case for a fillibuster when a majority takes the populist approach in a democratic republic. Many of the "changes" we have suffered in the past century or so have created an ignorance of the constitution and it's founding principles, many times this was done by hiding behind majority opinion or "political capitol" stopping that becomes necessary at times.The result is always undesirable to someone. It's the consequence of representative democracy. You can't please all the people.The second stimulus comes to mind, federal gun control regulation at times in our history, AMA rules changes at the beginning of the twentieth century, the creation of Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, upon others.And can you give me an example when the debate was one-sided?And they are all legitimate reasons for fillibustering, as I've stated before, sometimes they are used to do good and sometimes they are used for the wrong reasons, this doesn't change the fact that the fillibuster exists and is right in line with the idea of slowing or stopping an out of control legislative or government expansion.And what about all the times when there was a vigorous debate and a party filibustered anyways? Or what about when a party didn't debate, they just filibustered? I'd say those happen much more often than the filibuster being used to further actual debate.
Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate.
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?
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?