Will the Senate scrap the filibuster?

[loosecannon]

I seem to do better at math than you do with reading comprehension. Where in the Constitution does it require that either branch of Congress resolve anything with a majority vote? If you bother to read the document you love you will see that the only time it mentions anything about how much of a majority it takes to pass something it requires far more than a simple majority, and goes as high as requiring 3 out of 4 to pass some things. The only mention of breaking a tie is in reference to the Vice President who, at the time the Constitution you love was written, was the guy who had lost the election for President.

Making the loser of an election President of the Senate was a booby prize, which is why it specified that the only thing he gets to do is vote if their is a tie. It does not, however, say that that vote will make a difference in any way, shape, or form, just that he gets it. It was a position for losers, not a position of power.It wasn't until no one managed to get elected as President in 1800 that the system was changed through the addition of the 12th Amendment that the President and Vice President got elected in separate ballots, and the present system was implemented.

Nothing in the Constitution requires your simple majority vote.

Still not dazzling us with your math skills

If there is a tie (50-50) the President of the Senate makes the deciding vote. There is no other purpose of the vote.

Again, where does it say that the Senate has to set a simple majority as the way to pass anything? Or are you just going to try throwing back something I told you as if it proves something?

It is right under your nose and you don't want to see it.

The Filibuster is a gimmick, it should be eliminated entirely. It never had a useful purpose. And it is an end around the expressly stated intentions of the framers.

 

[Revere]

Still not dazzling us with your math skills

If there is a tie (50-50) the President of the Senate makes the deciding vote. There is no other purpose of the vote.

Again, where does it say that the Senate has to set a simple majority as the way to pass anything? Or are you just going to try throwing back something I told you as if it proves something?

It is right under your nose and you don't want to see it.

The Filibuster is a gimmick, it should be eliminated entirely. It never had a useful purpose. And it is an end around the expressly stated intentions of the framers.

No the intention of the framers was to use the Senate to slow the growth of new legislation.

 

[The T]

Again, where does it say that the Senate has to set a simple majority as the way to pass anything? Or are you just going to try throwing back something I told you as if it proves something?

It is right under your nose and you don't want to see it.

The Filibuster is a gimmick, it should be eliminated entirely. It never had a useful purpose. And it is an end around the expressly stated intentions of the framers.

No the intention of the framers was to use the Senate to slow the growth of new legislation.

Precisely. And why the adoption of the 17th Amendment was a huge mistake. Personally? The 17th was pushed by progressive Socialists that wanted to speed things along in my view.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Still not dazzling us with your math skills

If there is a tie (50-50) the President of the Senate makes the deciding vote. There is no other purpose of the vote.

Again, where does it say that the Senate has to set a simple majority as the way to pass anything? Or are you just going to try throwing back something I told you as if it proves something?

It is right under your nose and you don't want to see it.

The Filibuster is a gimmick, it should be eliminated entirely. It never had a useful purpose. And it is an end around the expressly stated intentions of the framers.

Where?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[loosecannon]

Again, where does it say that the Senate has to set a simple majority as the way to pass anything? Or are you just going to try throwing back something I told you as if it proves something?

It is right under your nose and you don't want to see it.

The Filibuster is a gimmick, it should be eliminated entirely. It never had a useful purpose. And it is an end around the expressly stated intentions of the framers.

No the intention of the framers was to use the Senate to slow the growth of new legislation.

the intention of the framers was that the senate would be the millionaires house. Not a dysfunctional albatross that can't pass a budget without pork additives.

 

[loosecannon]

Again, where does it say that the Senate has to set a simple majority as the way to pass anything? Or are you just going to try throwing back something I told you as if it proves something?

It is right under your nose and you don't want to see it.

The Filibuster is a gimmick, it should be eliminated entirely. It never had a useful purpose. And it is an end around the expressly stated intentions of the framers.

Where?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

each Senator shall have one Vote......The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

That clearly expresses the framer's intent that each senator has one vote and that a simple majority is sufficient for passage, esp since several exceptions are listed like super majorities to impeach and over rule a presidential veto.

Everybody knows this who doesn't have a bias preventing them from seeing it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is right under your nose and you don't want to see it.

The Filibuster is a gimmick, it should be eliminated entirely. It never had a useful purpose. And it is an end around the expressly stated intentions of the framers.

No the intention of the framers was to use the Senate to slow the growth of new legislation.

the intention of the framers was that the senate would be the millionaires house. Not a dysfunctional albatross that can't pass a budget without pork additives.

The budget originates in the House, not the Senate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is right under your nose and you don't want to see it.

The Filibuster is a gimmick, it should be eliminated entirely. It never had a useful purpose. And it is an end around the expressly stated intentions of the framers.

Where?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

each Senator shall have one Vote......The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

That clearly expresses the framer's intent that each senator has one vote and that a simple majority is sufficient for passage, esp since several exceptions are listed like super majorities to impeach and over rule a presidential veto.

Everybody knows this who doesn't have a bias preventing them from seeing it.

I can see exactly what it says, and that passage says nothing about passing anything, it just explains the single circumstances under which the loser of the presedential election gets a vote.

 

[Queen]

No the intention of the framers was to use the Senate to slow the growth of new legislation.

the intention of the framers was that the senate would be the millionaires house. Not a dysfunctional albatross that can't pass a budget without pork additives.

The budget originates in the House, not the Senate.

And then the Senate changes it and it goes back to the House for approval. It's been held up by the Republicans filibuster this year and still hasn't passed since October.

I think the Senate should make this change. I think the record breaking filibusters have broken the government and the problem should be solved this way.

 

[Intense]

the intention of the framers was that the senate would be the millionaires house. Not a dysfunctional albatross that can't pass a budget without pork additives.

The budget originates in the House, not the Senate.

And then the Senate changes it and it goes back to the House for approval. It's been held up by the Republicans filibuster this year and still hasn't passed since October.

I think the Senate should make this change. I think the record breaking filibusters have broken the government and the problem should be solved this way.

Until next year when the Republican's retake the Senate, and you find yourself missing the Filibuster. Think on that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The filibuster is good because it forces some mode of working together.

However, I don't think a 'block' is the way to do it. Put the minority party on their feet if they want to filibuster. It's good theater, good publicity, and makes them all visible to America when they do.

When the Pubs retake the Senate in 2012, they also need to put the Dems on their feet if they want to filibuster.

 

[Intense]

The filibuster is good because it forces some mode of working together.

However, I don't think a 'block' is the way to do it. Put the minority party on their feet if they want to filibuster. It's good theater, good publicity, and makes them all visible to America when they do.

When the Pubs retake the Senate in 2012, they also need to put the Dems on their feet if they want to filibuster.

Agreed Jake. We should be aware of exactly what is going on, who is involved, and why.

 

[loosecannon]

No the intention of the framers was to use the Senate to slow the growth of new legislation.

the intention of the framers was that the senate would be the millionaires house. Not a dysfunctional albatross that can't pass a budget without pork additives.

The budget originates in the House, not the Senate.

it still has to pass the senate and then reconciliation between the houses.

And despite what the const. says the budget by law originates in the white house.

 

[loosecannon]

Where?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

each Senator shall have one Vote......The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

That clearly expresses the framer's intent that each senator has one vote and that a simple majority is sufficient for passage, esp since several exceptions are listed like super majorities to impeach and over rule a presidential veto.

Everybody knows this who doesn't have a bias preventing them from seeing it.

I can see exactly what it says, and that passage says nothing about passing anything, it just explains the single circumstances under which the loser of the presedential election gets a vote.

and it describes that single circumstance as the exception to the rule of majority vote required for passage. The fact that the senate does in fact rely on a simple majority for passage of bills kind of proves that point. The fact that they don't rely on simple majority to bring bills to a vote is an end around the framer's intentions and you know it.

You just don't like it so you erect strawmen.

 

[rdean]

The Republican Party is shrinking. No way they would let go of the filibuster. Otherwise, they couldn't hold the middle class hostage to get tax breaks for the rich.

 

[loosecannon]

The budget originates in the House, not the Senate.

And then the Senate changes it and it goes back to the House for approval. It's been held up by the Republicans filibuster this year and still hasn't passed since October.

I think the Senate should make this change. I think the record breaking filibusters have broken the government and the problem should be solved this way.

Until next year when the Republican's retake the Senate, and you find yourself missing the Filibuster. Think on that.

who cares? A minority of 41 senators is not supposed to be able to derail the entire budget process.

 

[loosecannon]

The filibuster is good because it forces some mode of working together.

the senate is not supposed to be forced to compromise between all of it's minority members, it is supposed to simply pass, reject or modify bills.

What possible good comes from a minority of 41 senators being able to freeze the senate into gridlock?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both parties have used it wrongly the last few decades. The filibuster forces a full discussion of an issue. That is a very good thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the intention of the framers was that the senate would be the millionaires house. Not a dysfunctional albatross that can't pass a budget without pork additives.

The budget originates in the House, not the Senate.

And then the Senate changes it and it goes back to the House for approval. It's been held up by the Republicans filibuster this year and still hasn't passed since October.

I think the Senate should make this change. I think the record breaking filibusters have broken the government and the problem should be solved this way.

Wrong. If you back and look you will see it was never even brought up for a vote. As one Democrat explained when asked about it, no one has ever been not voted out for not voting on a budget. The Democrats chose to just pass continuing resolutions so they would not have to defend the massive deficit spending they were doing. The fact that you are blaming the Republicans for this shows just how effective the technique is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That clearly expresses the framer's intent that each senator has one vote and that a simple majority is sufficient for passage, esp since several exceptions are listed like super majorities to impeach and over rule a presidential veto.

Everybody knows this who doesn't have a bias preventing them from seeing it.

I can see exactly what it says, and that passage says nothing about passing anything, it just explains the single circumstances under which the loser of the presedential election gets a vote.

and it describes that single circumstance as the exception to the rule of majority vote required for passage. The fact that the senate does in fact rely on a simple majority for passage of bills kind of proves that point. The fact that they don't rely on simple majority to bring bills to a vote is an end around the framer's intentions and you know it.

You just don't like it so you erect strawmen.

I am not relying on a straw man, I am pointing out facts. The Constitution clearly states that both houses Congress makes its own rules about everything, including how many votes it takes to pass legislation. Since the Senate is deliberately designed to have an even number of votes a method had to be provided to break a tie, and they decided to through the Vice President a bone in doing so. That does not mean that the other provisions about the Senate making its own rules is negated by this vote, it just means that they had enough brains in their head to recognize the possibility of a tie vote and find a way to break it. That might be because they had the example of the English Parliament, where it is actually possible to not be able to have a government at all if compromise is not reached, and wanted to avoid it.

If you prefer to cling to your viewpoint feel free, just do not attempt to claim you can make up your own facts. A vote to end debate has always required a super majority. It used to be required in the House also until it got so large that allowing everyone a chance to speak on every bill became impossible. Senators have gotten lazy in recent times and elected not to actually get up there and talk, so they rewrote the rules so that all the minority party has to do is refuse to allow unanimous consent to force a vote on cloture.

The Democrats used this the last two years to make the Republicans into the bad guys, and forced them to invoke the "filibuster" more times than has ever happened before. Every person who is not a partisan hack saw this for what it was. Never in history has the either party been so solidly shut out of the debate and the process of governing. this is not a good thing, yet you want blame the victims of the railroading because they stood up and fought for your rights.

Feel free to disagree with their politics, and call them every name in the book, but if they get the power in two years and decide to pass a bunch of policies you hate, and decide to shut the Democrats out of government, you will screaming about how they are usurping the Constitution just like the other side is now. I can pretty much guarantee that you like the idea of requiring more than a simple majority to end debate then.