|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
05-14-2012, 06:57 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,916
|
|
Is the filibuster unconstitutional?
It seems a pretty bright lawyer is going to try to bring this case. I don't know whether or not it's constitutional, but it sure seems to be overused and undemocratic technique.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...dPU_story.html
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-14-2012, 08:26 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
|
Good arguments, but they have a snowball's chance of prevailing. The Court is extremely reluctant to weigh in on the internal workings of other branches of government. Under the current circumstances, I don't see this court intervening. Now, if there was a Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican president - maybe.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
05-15-2012, 02:50 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
|
|
I agree with D-Ray. Having a fillibuster to control an errant party is a good idea IMHO.
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
|
05-15-2012, 06:54 AM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
I agree with D-Ray. Having a fillibuster to control an errant party is a good idea IMHO.
|
Sure by all means - minority rule. The very factions Madison warned us about.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
05-15-2012, 08:59 AM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
I agree with D-Ray. Having a fillibuster to control an errant party is a good idea IMHO.
|
We might agree with the potential for success in the S Ct, but I agree with the author that the filibuster has been abused. It was supposed to be an extraordinary remedy but had devolved into standard operating procedure. Moreover, the original use of the filibuster required some extraordinary commitment by the participants - they had to actually keep the debate going continuously. Now that practice would interfere with fund-raising efforts, so minority rule is now enforced by the simple threat of the filibuster. While I might agree that the filibuster is needed in extreme circumstances, I believe that the reality of its use should reflect the extraordinary nature of the procedure.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
05-16-2012, 07:16 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,252
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
I agree with D-Ray. Having a fillibuster to control an errant party is a good idea IMHO.
|
But the concept of the super majority were you need 60 votes to break a filibuster is undemocratic. It is a Senate rule that changed it from a simple majority vote with a 50/50 tie broken by the vote of the President of the Senate.
The super majority has been abused by Republicans in the Senate over 140 times in the last 3.5 years.
Basically elections no longer have consequences. We will never know what Obamas policies could have done because most died on the floor of the Senate.
The Senate was created to control the House which is the body that represents the people. Remember Senators were originally appointed by the states and people had no voice in that choice. In essence the Senate exists to protect the interest of the wealthy land owners. The Senate today is still performing it's job of protecting the wealthy.
|
05-16-2012, 08:20 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgrr
The Senate was created to control the House which is the body that represents the people.
|
Someone needs to go back and brush up on their civics lessons.
|
05-15-2012, 09:46 AM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
Getting rid of it appeals to me. It would be interesting. But could you imagine the lurches government would make! Interesting indeed.
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
05-15-2012, 09:57 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,916
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter
I agree with D-Ray. Having a fillibuster to control an errant party is a good idea IMHO.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
Getting rid of it appeals to me. It would be interesting. But could you imagine the lurches government would make! Interesting indeed.
Pete
|
It seems to me that the Constitution provided the veto and the provisions to override it to handle these issues.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-15-2012, 10:02 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Derby City U.S.A.
Posts: 8,213
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
It seems to me that the Constitution provided the veto and the provisions to override it to handle these issues.
|
The Veto, what if one party controls the House, Senate and the Presidency like the Tea Baggers. No Veto would be issued on privatizing SS or eliminating the Department of Education is passed.
Barney
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 PM.
|