Filibusters

[dageds]

The term "filibuster" had been in use for centuries to refer to independent military operators. The term was commonly used in the 1840s for American adventurers who sought to seize power in Central America. The term in its legislative sense was first used in 1854 when opponents tried to delay the Kansas-Nebraska Act in the U.S. Congress. Wiktionary explains the etymology thus: "From Spanish filibustero (“pirate”) > French flibustier > Dutch vrijbuiter (“freebooter”), from vrij (“free”) + buit (“booty”) + -er (“agent”)". Parliamentary filibusters, by analogy, steal the debate and hold it as theirs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 In 1806 this rule was revoked, and allowed for the potential filibuster.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

Wrong.

Filibusters are explicitly allowed under Senate rules, and they used to be allowed under House rules before the house got so big that it became impractical. The House rules were changed to limit debate.

The Constitution specifically gives each Congress the power to set its own rules, bringing up the Founding Fathers is just a way to confuse people about filibusters.

The filibuster shuts down the Senate completely, and gives one Senator the power to make his views heard. The fact is that both parties have changed the rules, and that the requirement for a cloture vote is not a filibuster, even though everyone calls it that. The last time there was actually a filibuster was 1992. Reid did do a marathon speaking session on the right to filibuster in 2003, but the Senate conducted other business around him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There you go again, starting off good and ending up looking like a fool.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

So? Would you have a problem with the filibuster of Republicans were in charge and wanted to pass a law making it illegal to talk bad about Bush?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

It actually is a rule.

The way it works now is a party can threaten a filibuster, and the Senate can table the bill until later. If we actually enforced filibusters the old way that would be impossible, and even less would get done. Why complain about something that actually makes it possible for the Senate to skirt shutting down completely by playing like there is a filibuster and taking a cloture vote? It only shuts down a single bill if it fails, not the entire Senate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't have a problem with filibusters in principle, but it needs to be where you actually have to stand on the floor and speak. A simple threat of doing so shouldn't be enough to grind the Senate to a halt. Right now it's dysfunctional.

It does not grind the Senate to a halt, stop buying into the hyperbole of the media.