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 In 1806 this rule was revoked, and allowed for the potential filibuster.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.