Filibusters

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Middleoftheroad, Sep 29, 2011.

  1. Middleoftheroad
    Offline

    Middleoftheroad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +54
    I'm very confused on how I feel about this subject. I've read about it many times, and still am not certain if it should be allowed to continue or not. So I've started a thread to discuss this and get everyones opinion.
    Basically what I have read about filibusters is this
    Against: Filibusters aren't explicitly allowed, but more of a trick of getting around the rules. Basically (from what I understand) the senate, when it was formed, was allowed unlimited time to debate a certain subject. In 1789 a rule was added to allow "to move the previous question", basically ending the debate and moving on. In 1806 this rule was revoked, and allowed for the potential filibuster. It was never exercised until 1837. Basically I feel that the founding fathers never intended for this to happen, as it did not happen until 60 years after the declaration of independence, at which time I'm sure most founding fathers had already passed away.
    Pro: Simply it allows the minority in the senate to have a voice. Whereas most bills wont even come up unless they feel that have close to 60 votes (which is needed to overturn a filibuster, known as cloture). Similarly as above, I don't think the founding fathers intended the senate to develop into two caucuses where senators from each party are pressured to vote for bills that their party supports, whether or not they support it themselves.
     
  2. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    I am glad you feel that way, I assume that means you think Income Taxes were never intended either. Considering the Founders didn't put it in there, and it only started Generations after they were all gone.
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Article I Section 5 of the Constitution authorizes both houses of Congress to compose its own rules. Whether the Framers intended a filibuster or not is irrelevant.

    Filibusters are merely a symptom of the hyper-partisan, dysfunctional nature of American politics and the unwillingness of voters to get involved to effect real change.
     
  4. Firehorse
    Offline

    Firehorse Free Thinker

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    548
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +77
    It is something to help make the voice of the minority party heard. In that reguard, I'm all for it. What we don't want is for the majority to be able to completely silence the minority. Those in the minority were elected by the people as well. Do I like it when it works against a bill I believe in? No, but that mechinism is there for a good cause
     
  5. Middleoftheroad
    Offline

    Middleoftheroad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +54
    So then for this reason do you feel filibusters should be ended?
     
  6. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    It allows the minority to stop all progress.

    If you have a party that places party over country then you get what we have now.

    Some people like it that way
     
  7. Middleoftheroad
    Offline

    Middleoftheroad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +54
    I understand they are allowed to make their own rules, but this isn't even a rule. Its basically someone refusing to shut up so that the matter can't be voted on, nor can they move on to another subject. In reality I don't believe it even actually works this way, now they just threaten to do it, and that is enough. Imagine going into a business meeting and doing this? This is not something adults do.
    But you are completely right, it is a symptom of hyper-partisan, dysfunctional government.
     
  8. Firehorse
    Offline

    Firehorse Free Thinker

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    548
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +77
    It's a tough call on what causes it. Obviously the minority party wants to do something. But is it the minorty that wants to be heard or the majority that wants to ignore them that's the problem?

    Obviously the two are not communicating as the public would like. But if you listen to the mixed messages that we the people are sending, is there no wonder that they don't communicate. People get so entrenched in their beliefs that they stop listening to people that do not share those same beliefs.

    When you have a system that replaces members a few at a time, such as the Senate, it's hard for those that have been there a while to see where tgose that are resently elected are coming from. They are so entrenched and have been for so long, their ears can't hear anything that is happening outside the chamber, while at the same time, the new members are committed to those that sent them to the senate.

    What sent the more senior members to the Senate and what sent the new members of the senate may be two diometerically opposed situations and it results in early and often deadlock.

    That is until the people on one issue or the other decide to put enough people in place to overrule the other group.

    It's how government changes, there will be headbutting as climate in the country changes
     
  9. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    Tch, tch, tch, TM. So you don't know?

    You don't know Democrats hold the United States record on the longest filibuster? :lmao:
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2011
  10. daws101
    Offline

    daws101 BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    41,528
    Thanks Received:
    3,041
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    ontario,ca not canada
    Ratings:
    +9,112
    what was that again?:Strom ThurmondFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Strom Thurmond

    James Strom Thurmond (December 5, 1902 – June 26, 2003) was an American politician who served as a United States Senator. He also ran for the Presidency of the United States in 1948 as the segregationist States Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidate, receiving 2.4% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes. Thurmond later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican. He switched out of support for the conservatism of Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who shared his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.[2] He left office as the only senator to reach the age of 100 while still in office and as the oldest-serving and longest-serving senator in U.S. history (although he was later surpassed in the latter by Robert Byrd).[3] Thurmond holds the record for the longest-serving Dean of the United States Senate in U.S. history at 14 years.

    He conducted the longest filibuster ever by a lone senator, in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in length, nonstop. In the 1960s, he continued to fight against civil rights legislation. He always insisted he had never been a racist, but was merely opposed to excessive federal authority. However, he infamously said that "all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement", while attributing the movement for integration to Communism. [4] Starting in the 1970s, he moderated his position on race, but continued to defend his early segregationist campaigns on the basis of states' rights in the context of Southern society at the time,[5] never fully renouncing his earlier viewpoints.[6][7]

    Six months after Thurmond's death in 2003, it was revealed that at age 22 he had fathered a daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, with his family's African-American maid Carrie Butler, then 16. Although Thurmond never publicly acknowledged his daughter, he paid for her college education and passed other money to her for some time. The Thurmond family acknowledged her.[8]
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2011

Share This Page