Filibusters

[Middleoftheroad]

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 In 1806 this rule was revoked, and allowed for the potential filibuster.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

 

[Charles_Main]

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

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Firehorse]

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

 

[Middleoftheroad]

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

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.

So then for this reason do you feel filibusters should be ended?

 

[Truthmatters]

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

 

[Middleoftheroad]

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.

 

[Firehorse]

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

 

[freedombecki]

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

Tch, tch, tch, TM. So you don't know?

You don't know Democrats hold the United States record on the longest filibuster?

 

[daws101]

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

Tch, tch, tch, TM. So you don't know?

You don't know Democrats hold the United States record on the longest filibuster?

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]

 

[Sheldon]

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.

 

[freedombecki]

daws101 - what was that again?: Strom Thurmond

He filibustered in 1957 against Republicans because at the time he was a Democrat.

I stand by what I said, which was true. A Democrat holds that record.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too, daws. "Tawwy."

 

[daws101]

daws101 - what was that again?: Strom Thurmond

He filibustered in 1957 against Republicans because at the time he was a Democrat.

I stand by what I said, which was true. A Democrat holds that record.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too, daws. "Tawwy."

it's only true in a very small context and does not reflect the deomcratic party of today as you are not so subtly attempting infer..

 

[Trajan]

daws101 - what was that again?: Strom Thurmond

He filibustered in 1957 against Republicans because at the time he was a Democrat.

I stand by what I said, which was true. A Democrat holds that record.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too, daws. "Tawwy."

it's only true in a very small context and does not reflect the deomcratic party of today as you are not so subtly attempting infer..

I see, so Reid filibustering his own bill doesn't count? very small context, yes of course, seems to me redemption is a funny business.

 

[daws101]

He filibustered in 1957 against Republicans because at the time he was a Democrat.

I stand by what I said, which was true. A Democrat holds that record.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too, daws. "Tawwy."

it's only true in a very small context and does not reflect the deomcratic party of today as you are not so subtly attempting infer..

I see, so Reid filibustering his own bill doesn't count? very small context, yes of course, seems to me redemption is a funny business.

apples and horseshoes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I support the filibuster, but as someone said, you gotta actually do it - stand there and talk for hours.

No more running in fear at the threat of a filibuster.

 

[Trajan]

it's only true in a very small context and does not reflect the deomcratic party of today as you are not so subtly attempting infer..

I see, so Reid filibustering his own bill doesn't count? very small context, yes of course, seems to me redemption is a funny business.

apples and horseshoes.

how so?

 

[Trajan]

I support the filibuster, but as someone said, you gotta actually do it - stand there and talk for hours.

No more running in fear at the threat of a filibuster.

that was sheldon and yes I agree, I think half the threats would vaporize if they had to actually get up there and follow through on the threat, they both play the game and ts inherently dishonest.

 

[daws101]

i see, so reid filibustering his own bill doesn't count? Very small context, yes of course, seems to me redemption is a funny business.

apples and horseshoes.

how so?

context.

 

[Wiseacre]

The filibuster is an attempt to prevent a Senate majority party from excluding the minority party from having any say over what gets written and passed. In theory, final legislation ought to be acceptable to both sides, with cooperation and compromise involved at least to some degree. To disallow that, as the democrarts have done, is to reduce the minority party's role in influencing what happens.

FYI:

snippet from link below:

The filibuster, long seen by its proponents as a necessary check on power and by its critics as a frustrating waste of time, has been around since the mid-19th century. A filibuster simply allows the minority political party to choose to endlessly debate a bill, stalling — and sometimes preventing — an actual vote. The word comes from the Dutch term vrijbuiter (pirate), in addition to the Spanish word filibustero (freebooting). The origins of filibuster use trace back to ancient Rome, and the practice has been common in several other countries including England and Australia. In the U.S., the tactic became known as a label for a Senator who held his colleagues hostage by overtalking legislation. Originally, both the Senate and the House of Representatives had a rule called the Previous Question Motion, where a simple majority ended debate — a rule the House has kept. But the Senate dropped this provision in 1806, leaving open the potential for a filibuster.
(Read "Revisiting the Filibuster.")

The first filibuster in U.S. Senate history began on March 5, 1841, over the issue of the firing of Senate printers, and lasted six days. Ever since, politicians have loved filibusters or hated them — depending which side of the fight they were on. Proponents argue the filibuster protects the right to free speech and prevents the Senate majority from steamrolling the minority, thus ensuring that critical legislation gets a sufficient airing before being pushed through. Others contend the practice has gotten out of hand, leaving bills gridlocked in an oft-feuding Senate and stalling important votes for purely partisan gain. Peter Fenn, GOP consultant and former Senate aide, called filibusters the "tyranny of the minority."

They're also grand political theater. Jimmy Stewart's one-man filibuster forms the climax of Frank Capra's 1939 classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. A reporter in the movie heralded them as "democracy's finest show ... the right to talk your head off, the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form." Four years earlier, Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long read the Constitution, plays of Shakespeare and even recipes for oyster dishes for 15 hours to prevent passage of a bill that would have given his political enemies New Deal jobs. Kentucky Senator Henry Clay became frustrated in 1841 when his banking bill was filibustered for 14 days. The longest uninterrupted filibuster on record belongs to South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who stopped a vote on a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes. A filibuster is often an effort of several Senators, but can also be done by a single Senator.

The only way to stop one is by invoking cloture — which forces a vote to take place. Cloture, adopted in 1917, used to require two-thirds of the Senate to agree to stop the talking. But with a two-thirds vote difficult to obtain (just four out of 23 cloture movements were successful between 1919 and 1960), the Senate changed the rule in 1975 to require just three-fifths' approval.
(Read "Can Democrats Pass Health Care Reform on Their Own?")


The filibuster has become an increasingly common tool: the 19th century saw fewer than two dozen filibusters enacted. By the Carter Administration, that figure was up to 20 per year. The threat of a filibuster has almost become a filibuster itself, stunting debate before it even begins.

Considering how controversial they've been, it's not surprising that politicians tend to flip-flop on filibuster use. In 1994 Senator Lieberman, then a Democrat, called the filibuster "an obstacle to accomplishment" and "a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today." Today Lieberman, now an independent, backs Republicans on health care reform and plans to filibuster the bill when it makes it to the Senate floor. Just goes to show everyone likes the filibuster when it's their time to use it.



Read more: A Brief History of Filibusters - TIME