Posted on Aug 29, 2017
32
32
0
Some politicians and pundits have suggested US Senate Rules should be changed to do away with the filibuster because of the difficulty the Republicans are having moving legislation through the Senate during 2017. Filibuster is the parliamentary tactic used to obstruct the passage of legislation. I will be looking at the pros and cons of removing the filibuster.
The Standing Rules of the US Senate control Senate business processes. The rules are based on the US Constitution, Article One, Section 5: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” There are very few restrictions on what a Senator may say on the Senate floor or how long they can speak. Senators may make no more than two speeches on a motion or bill during the same legislative day, but they are allowed to talk for as long as they want to - which could delay or kill a bill (AKA filibuster). The goal for some Senators is to continue speaking until the time for debate expires or the debate is ended. Closing a debate is called “cloture.” Senate Rule XXII, Precedence of Motions, controls how debate may be closed and states that sixteen Senators must sign a petition to close debate and present it to the presiding officer. The presiding officer will then call for a vote on cloture. Three-fifths of the Senators duly elected and sworn in are required to vote in favor of cloture to end a debate.
In 1806, the Senate Rules were changed, opening the way for the filibuster. It was used infrequently in the 19th Century, but in 1917, the Senate Rules were modified constraining its use. In 1970, the Senate adopted a two-track system allowing progress on other business when a filibuster is in process. The two-track rule made the threat of the filibuster more political and practical because the filibuster would no longer shut down all work on the Senate floor. A Senator may continue speaking for as long as he or she does not sit or leave the Senate floor. Senators will often talk about a variety of things during a filibuster, including reading the Constitution, the Bible, and Doctor Seuss books. In 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond, D-SC, held the floor for 24 hours filibustering civil rights legislation. More recently, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) filibustered judicial nominations. In 2013, the Senate changed its rules to require only a majority vote to reach cloture on executive nominations except nominations for the Supreme Court; in 2017, cloture on Supreme Court nominations was also changed to a majority. Normal legislation, rule changes, and some other Senate business remain subject to a filibuster. In effect, the filibuster threat has turned the US Senate into a 60-vote institution to get any legislation approved.
The Constitution anticipated a majority would rule except in those specific matters spelled out in the document, e.g., 2/3 of Senate must approve a treaty. Alexander Hamilton cautioned that requirements for a super majority was one of the primary problems with the Articles of Confederation (Federalist Papers Number 22). Mr. Hamilton warned the result of requiring a supermajority to conduct operations, “is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.” Events since the inauguration of President Donald Trump indicate Mr. Hamilton was correct. The public sees the amount of time and energy expended in the Senate with nothing accomplished. Filibustering is not done haphazardly. Both Democrats and Republicans use the filibuster, depending on whether or not they are in the minority. It is hard to give up the filibuster when a party knows they may be the minority in the next election.
Those who like the filibuster say it has been an important part of the American political system. The filibuster allows for more debate, and may force the two parties to come together to talk about the bill and come to a compromise. They believe the filibuster is a safeguard to the democratic principles of the American political system. Throwing it away would mean losing an element that forces the majority to listen to the minority. It allows the minority to have a chance to make themselves and their opinions heard.
Those who believe the filibuster should be done away with believe it creates too much competition and partisanship. It allows politicians to keep focus along party or caucus lines and pushes further away from working together to compromise. If the filibuster was banned, then more legislation would get through the Senate. They further believe the filibuster is a waste of time, money, and effort that should be spent reaching agreement on legislation that is good for the American people.
What do you think?
--
Information in this article is from Wikipedia and Pol411.student.blogspot, April 15, 2010, “An American Tale: The Filibuster and the Debate Over the Filibuster”
The Standing Rules of the US Senate control Senate business processes. The rules are based on the US Constitution, Article One, Section 5: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” There are very few restrictions on what a Senator may say on the Senate floor or how long they can speak. Senators may make no more than two speeches on a motion or bill during the same legislative day, but they are allowed to talk for as long as they want to - which could delay or kill a bill (AKA filibuster). The goal for some Senators is to continue speaking until the time for debate expires or the debate is ended. Closing a debate is called “cloture.” Senate Rule XXII, Precedence of Motions, controls how debate may be closed and states that sixteen Senators must sign a petition to close debate and present it to the presiding officer. The presiding officer will then call for a vote on cloture. Three-fifths of the Senators duly elected and sworn in are required to vote in favor of cloture to end a debate.
In 1806, the Senate Rules were changed, opening the way for the filibuster. It was used infrequently in the 19th Century, but in 1917, the Senate Rules were modified constraining its use. In 1970, the Senate adopted a two-track system allowing progress on other business when a filibuster is in process. The two-track rule made the threat of the filibuster more political and practical because the filibuster would no longer shut down all work on the Senate floor. A Senator may continue speaking for as long as he or she does not sit or leave the Senate floor. Senators will often talk about a variety of things during a filibuster, including reading the Constitution, the Bible, and Doctor Seuss books. In 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond, D-SC, held the floor for 24 hours filibustering civil rights legislation. More recently, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) filibustered judicial nominations. In 2013, the Senate changed its rules to require only a majority vote to reach cloture on executive nominations except nominations for the Supreme Court; in 2017, cloture on Supreme Court nominations was also changed to a majority. Normal legislation, rule changes, and some other Senate business remain subject to a filibuster. In effect, the filibuster threat has turned the US Senate into a 60-vote institution to get any legislation approved.
The Constitution anticipated a majority would rule except in those specific matters spelled out in the document, e.g., 2/3 of Senate must approve a treaty. Alexander Hamilton cautioned that requirements for a super majority was one of the primary problems with the Articles of Confederation (Federalist Papers Number 22). Mr. Hamilton warned the result of requiring a supermajority to conduct operations, “is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.” Events since the inauguration of President Donald Trump indicate Mr. Hamilton was correct. The public sees the amount of time and energy expended in the Senate with nothing accomplished. Filibustering is not done haphazardly. Both Democrats and Republicans use the filibuster, depending on whether or not they are in the minority. It is hard to give up the filibuster when a party knows they may be the minority in the next election.
Those who like the filibuster say it has been an important part of the American political system. The filibuster allows for more debate, and may force the two parties to come together to talk about the bill and come to a compromise. They believe the filibuster is a safeguard to the democratic principles of the American political system. Throwing it away would mean losing an element that forces the majority to listen to the minority. It allows the minority to have a chance to make themselves and their opinions heard.
Those who believe the filibuster should be done away with believe it creates too much competition and partisanship. It allows politicians to keep focus along party or caucus lines and pushes further away from working together to compromise. If the filibuster was banned, then more legislation would get through the Senate. They further believe the filibuster is a waste of time, money, and effort that should be spent reaching agreement on legislation that is good for the American people.
What do you think?
--
Information in this article is from Wikipedia and Pol411.student.blogspot, April 15, 2010, “An American Tale: The Filibuster and the Debate Over the Filibuster”
Law
United States Senate
Republicans
Democrats
Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 41
17
17
0
The problem is a lack of character Colonel. We have elected men and women of mean character that have little room for duty and are focused instead on what they believe is best for them to retain power, rather than committing to do the best by the citizens of this great nation. If there is a compromise to be made that they know is not in the best interest of the Country, they legitimize it by believing the falsehood that it affords them the opportunity to rise to higher heights of power and then they will FINALLY be in the ultimate position to "do good". But once there it is the allure of "the next" position that once again causes their own weak personal constitution based on relative truth and morals to falter and compromise their moral obligations and duty.
Our elections have become little more than a High School student body election; a series of gratuitous popularity contests...more entertainment than a well reasoned and rational selection of the Executive Officers and Board of Directors of a Trillion dollar corporation with 350-million stockholders and a license to kill. If we change the filibuster I am afraid it won't change the stripes of the people in both parties that we have too often carelessly elected to govern this great nation...maybe it will reduce their individual power a little and that wouldn't be all bad.
Martin
Semper Fi
Our elections have become little more than a High School student body election; a series of gratuitous popularity contests...more entertainment than a well reasoned and rational selection of the Executive Officers and Board of Directors of a Trillion dollar corporation with 350-million stockholders and a license to kill. If we change the filibuster I am afraid it won't change the stripes of the people in both parties that we have too often carelessly elected to govern this great nation...maybe it will reduce their individual power a little and that wouldn't be all bad.
Martin
Semper Fi
(17)
(0)
14
14
0
No. What they need to do is restore it to it's original rules, such as requiring the Senator to remain on the floor.
(14)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
" requiring the Senator to remain on the floor." AND continually speak..
If the purpose is to force debate, that means you have to be on the floor AND speaking, hopefully on topic, but of not, speaking until the other "side" agrees to come to the debate and engage on the topic at the heart of the filibuster
If the purpose is to force debate, that means you have to be on the floor AND speaking, hopefully on topic, but of not, speaking until the other "side" agrees to come to the debate and engage on the topic at the heart of the filibuster
(4)
(0)
14
14
0
CPT Jack Durish
SGT Edward Wilcox - One man, one vote. That is a foundational principle of American government, wouldn't you agree? Well, if the Senate is apportioned two votes for each state, then the vote of a citizen of Vermont is worth the vote of 50 citizens in California when electing Senators. State legislatures used to follow the federal model with bicameral houses, one representing people and the other representing counties. The Supreme Court rightly found this to be unconstitutional since counties are not sovereign bodies. Since the 17th Amendment we have violated this principle in the Senate. Of course, it isn't unconstitutional because Amendments are a part of the Constitution. Still, that doesn't make it right, does it? The Senate was supposed to represent states which are sovereign bodies. That is no longer the case. Since people now select Senators directly, Senators answer to and represent the people. One man, one vote? Hardly...
(3)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
CPT Jack Durish - "if the Senate is apportioned two votes for each state, then the vote of a citizen of Vermont is worth the vote of 50 citizens in California when electing Senators." - How is that any different from when the state legislatures appointed the Senators. You still had Senators from larger states representing more people than those from smaller states. The change simply gave the power to the People, rather than the elites in each state.
In any event, one man one vote does not apply in this situation. We vote to select representatives, whether in the House of the Senate. We do not vote on legislation being considered in each chamber.
I'm beginning to think that you do not have a full understanding of how our government works.
In any event, one man one vote does not apply in this situation. We vote to select representatives, whether in the House of the Senate. We do not vote on legislation being considered in each chamber.
I'm beginning to think that you do not have a full understanding of how our government works.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Gary Andrews
Likewise, Captain Jack, the Senate has survived all this time with the filibuster in place.....why do away with it now?
(3)
(0)
SGT Tony Clifford
Sir, you make one mistake. While senators are elected by popular vote now, they still represent the interest of their state legislature. Representatives represent the people in their district. That sounds like splitting hairs, but quite often the state's interest and the people living in the state are in conflict with one another.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google