• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

Oh, I have researched the answer. And my research concludes that the Founding Fathers didn't inherently cherish the procedure of filibusters. Which makes me wonder why you even mention the Founding Fathers with regards to the filibuster.





That is certainly the case. However, that does not defend the Senate's right to delay the passage of legislation using the filibuster.



So please explain to everyone here why it's a good thing for one Senator to be able to hold the rest of the Senate hostage.

Please let's hear all the details.
 
Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster? - FoxNews.com



And the Progressive's destruction of America and it's founders' intentions continues... When will it end?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the fillibuster didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers? The checks were built into the branches and the bi-cameral legislative structure. Within the houses themselves, I'm pretty sure the rule was the majority decides, plain and simple.

Udall has four proposals.
Udall is considering four key proposals as part of the resolution he will offer. One would prevent filibusters to taking up a bill or on a nomination, although it will still allow filibusters to end debate on a bill. A second would eliminate so-called "secret holds" in which a senator can anonymously stall legislation or a nomination from coming to the floor. A third would require senators leading a filibuster stay on the floor and debate the issue during the entire filibuster. A fourth proposal from Udall is aimed at appeasing GOP concerns about being locked out of the process. It would require a certain number of amendments for the minority party for any bill being debated.
Some Senate Democrats to try to change filibuster rules in new Congress – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I like 2 and 3, at least.
 
Lobbyists are a fantastic tool for democracy. People are just too short-minded to consider all of the groups that agree with each individual issue who continue to bring awareness to their representatives the importance of a certain policy stance.

I'm not advocating getting rid of lobbyists. I am advocating giving the people one house of congress where the most important relationship is between the congressman and his constituents. Right now we have a redundant bicameral congress where both houses advocate what their donors tell them. This is aristocracy for the benefit of those with access. So once again, if a weird rule serves to slow down that aristocracy I'm all for it.
 
Last edited:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the fillibuster didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers? The checks were built into the branches and the bi-cameral legislative structure. Within the houses themselves, I'm pretty sure the rule was the majority decides, plain and simple.

Actually, the filibuster has existed from the start of the U.S. Constitution.

However, it was not present in the Senate. Rather, it was used in the House of Representatives. The House originally allowed unlimited debate, but the first Congress only had 59-65 Representatives. This was changed in 1842, when the House expanded to 242 Representatives. Basically, the House simply grew too large to allow unlimited debate among it's members, which was why the rules in the House were changed.

In the Senate, there's this information from Wikipedia:

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia said:
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter." Other Senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.

Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[3] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.

So there were a few differences in how the filibuster was used originally and how it is used now:

1) It was used in the House until the chamber became too large for unlimited debate.

2) The Senate did not originally have the filibuster - rather, it came about because of a rule change that inadvertently led to the potential of a filibuster.

3) The filibuster in the Senate was used very sparingly because if a minority caucus used it too often to stall legislation, a change in the rules to disallow the filibuster could be passed with a majority vote that could not itself be filibustered.

4) The filibuster was used only to delay, not oppose, the passage of legislation.

So arguments talking about how the Founding Fathers support the power of filibuster are pretty disingenuous considering how much the modern filibuster rules have changed compared to what the filibuster was originally. Especially so since nowhere in the Constitution does it state any support for the filibuster.
 
The founding fathers intended for the States to pick the Senators and the Lobbyists to keep their grubby hands off our representatives. Everything since then has been a mockery of democracy and nudging closer to fascism. Until we have representation again I'm for anything that slows down the lobbyists.

How does a supermajority "slow down the lobbyists"? That assumes that lobbyists always prefer action to inaction. In some cases (telecom being a prime example), doing nothing is exactly what the lobbyists want, so a supermajority actually helps them.
 
How does a supermajority "slow down the lobbyists"? That assumes that lobbyists always prefer action to inaction. In some cases (telecom being a prime example), doing nothing is exactly what the lobbyists want, so a supermajority actually helps them.

Another way of putting it is that a single Senator who can put a halt to the passage of legislation by utilizing the fiibuster can benefit the lobbyists who work for an industry or organization that doesn't want legislation concerning said industries and organizations to be passed.
 
I'm not advocating getting rid of lobbyists. I am advocating giving the people one house of congress where the most important relationship is between the congressman and his constituents. Right now we have a redundant bicameral congress where both houses advocate what their donors tell them. This is aristocracy for the benefit of those with access. So once again, if a weird rule serves to slow down that aristocracy I'm all for it.

And his constituents are also his lobbyists who represent various state and local interests, business, social, or governmental. Some of the best ways to get to your congressmen are through lobbyists who share your same concerns. I have witnessed it for a very long time.
 
The Europeans system is far less perfect.

It's like this, the real go-gitters in Europe all came to America. That's why Americans are superior to every other country in the world.

That is debatable. And while European systems may be far less perfect you've 1) admitted that the America system is not perfect either and 2) you have yet to explain how importing any procedure from Europe would inherently make the American system less perfect.

How many countries in Europe are cocked up 9 ways from Sunday, right now?

Okay.

So Europeans have popular elections in their countries.

So does that mean you want to get rid of popular elections here in the U.S.?

Gee, where did that come from?


Actually, Sam has a pretty good point. While many European countries are doing poorly in a number of ways its the height of absurdity to say that they don't do anything right or anything better than us. Education is something that comes to mind almost immediately. I don't think Sam is suggesting we make a carbon copy of the European model for our own but to study it to see what can be done better. In the same way we should study ALL modern governmental models.

If you were a CEO of a company and had a competitor that had a slight edge on you in certain areas, would you not study what the competition is doing differently? At the end of the day you may find that it's not the right direction for you but wouldn't it slightly foolish and arrogant not to analyze your shortcomings?
 
I don't have a problem with filibusters in and of themselves. I DO however hold contempt for an "intent to filibuster." I have no problem with one senator holding up the progress of passage. If one were forced to actually "filibuster" in the Merriem-webster definition of the word, then a lot fewer things would be held up due to party lines. This holds true for both parties. I'd be curious to see how many things have actually been filibustered by both parties at different times and attempted to be passed by both as well. Party flip-flopping is a funny thing.
 
Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster? - FoxNews.com



And the Progressive's destruction of America and it's founders' intentions continues... When will it end?

About God damn time. This log jam crap has got to stop. If I were you I would get mad at the people responsible for using more than any previous Congress. The Republicans. They are the ones destroying the intent of the founders and the will of the people. ANy other assessment is hyperbole and scapgoating.
 
I was actually referring to other things the Progressives have done to undermine the founders without actually listing them. Take the 17th amendment for example.

YOu apparently do not understand the process. The Congress decides whether to "allow" an amendment to go before the states and then a majority of states must agree to ratify it. Then Congress agrees with the states and the Prez signs it into law. How many progressives exactly would have been involved in that process. VERY few. Are you actually suggesting that the Progressives (I assume you read Libs) have highjacked this process? OMG

Since the process involves the majority of states all parties were involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom