Is the filibuster unconstitutional?

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by Oerets

The Filibuster as it was intended and used for the majority of the U.S. history did work. It is only in the last few years since 1996 IIRC that is is now a way of stalling the work of the Senate.

But if the Republicans get control the Democrats will use the Filibuster the same way we all know. So in these so divided, polarized times the Filibuster might just be needed until the sanity returns.

Well one can always hope........


Barney

Wasn't it the Dems that actually used and abused it until it was considered S.O.P.?

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by Rex E.

Wasn't it the Dems that actually used and abused it until it was considered S.O.P.?

There is enough guilt of using it to go around!

From wiki.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cl...47_to_2008.svg



Barney

[wgrr]

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.

[whell]

The Senate was always cast as the more deliberative and cautious house of government. From my perspective, so much the better that there is a tool in place to help keep it that way, whatever party is in the majority.

[whell]

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.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

The Senate was always cast as the more deliberative and cautious house of government. From my perspective, so much the better that there is a tool in place to help keep it that way, whatever party is in the majority.

When that tool prvents any bill from reaching the floor how is that "deliberative"? When you cannot even discuss a bill that is not what I would call deliberative.

[whell]

It does require conensus building and good old fashioned arm twisting to get the job done. I'm not saying its a perfect tool. However, we've done pretty well in our history with the filibuster as part of the political landscape.

Besides, "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" was a great movie. It would have been nothing without the filibuster.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

However, we've done pretty well in our history with the filibuster as part of the political landscape.

Even in our recent history? Consider these statistics:
"At the time of the country’s founding, seven of the 13 states, representing 27 percent of the population, could command a majority in the Senate. Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing 11 percent of the population, can muster the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. “The supermajority vote requirement,” Bondurant argues, thus “upsets the Great Compromise’s carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.”

Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

It does require conensus building and good old fashioned arm twisting to get the job done. I'm not saying its a perfect tool. However, we've done pretty well in our history with the filibuster as part of the political landscape.

Besides, "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" was a great movie. It would have been nothing without the filibuster.

Problem today is that they don't have to pay the price for a filibuster. It might not be standard operating procedure if the senators actually had to keep debate going continuously in order to maintain the filibuster. Cloture is a motion to end debate. What's the use of the rule if debate isn't happening?

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Besides, "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" was a great movie. It would have been nothing without the filibuster.

True. It would have been even more sappy and boring without that little nugget of drama.