"No religion is true, but some religion, any religion, is politically necessary. Law and morality are insufficient for the large majority of men. Obedience to the law and to the morals are insufficient for making men happy. […]Law and morality are therefore in need of being supplemented by divine rewards and punishments."
voters didn't SAY they preferred the filibusterers
they just voted for em, en masse
obstructing obama is us---and it really pays off
meanwhile: Dems stymied on filibuster reform - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com
party on, neophytes
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
Udall has four proposals.Some Senate Democrats to try to change filibuster rules in new Congress – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com BlogsUdall 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.
I like 2 and 3, at least.
Last edited by Zyroh; 01-06-11 at 12:53 PM.
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
So there were a few differences in how the filibuster was used originally and how it is used now:Originally Posted by Wikipedia
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.
Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD