Debate Now Two questions about the U.S. Senate and its members

[320 Years of History]

1. Should the filibuster be eliminated from Senate rules? Why or why not?
2. Should specific Senators (or the Senate as a whole) be criminally charged with dereliction of duty? Why or why not?

Thread Rules:

1. Answer one or both questions, but you must answer both parts of whichever question you answer.
2. Stay on topic. No other topics of discussion except to the extent that they are material to the two thread questions and you show how they are related to the two thread questions in addition to providing your answers to the thread question(s).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No the filibuster should not be eliminated because it provides the minority a potential say in decision making. We are NOT designed to be at the whim of the majority.

Why would you think Senators could be charged with dereliction of duty? Exactly what have the been derelict at? And if you claim they have failed to pass some legislation then I assume you had a HUGE problem when the Dems ran the Senate and ignored over 200 bills from the House.

 

[longknife]

The whole purpose of the Senate is to keep the mob from ruling the country. The filibuster (before being screwed up by Dingy Harry, was to make the Senate slow down and carefully ponder its actions.

 

[candycorn]

1. Should the filibuster be eliminated from Senate rules? Why or why not?
2. Should specific Senators (or the Senate as a whole) be criminally charged with dereliction of duty? Why or why not?

Thread Rules:

1. Answer one or both questions, but you must answer both parts of whichever question you answer.
2. Stay on topic. No other topics of discussion except to the extent that they are material to the two thread questions and you show how they are related to the two thread questions in addition to providing your answers to the thread question(s).

1. The filibuster should not be eliminated but it should be restored to it’s original meaning to where the person(s) wanting to filibuster a bill have to stand and speak. Currently, they just file a filibuster and they needn’t spend a moment standing before the body.

2. No. I would be all for changing the Senate rules via constitutional amendment to give the document voice to where it is currently silent. But your definition is way too wide. One could make the argument that if a Senator didn’t vote for military action…they are being derelict.

 

[320 Years of History]

1. The filibuster should not be eliminated but it should be restored to it’s original meaning to where the person(s) wanting to filibuster a bill have to stand and speak. Currently, they just file a filibuster and they needn’t spend a moment standing before the body.

2. No. I would be all for changing the Senate rules via constitutional amendment to give the document voice to where it is currently silent. But your definition is way too wide. One could make the argument that if a Senator didn’t vote for military action…they are being derelict

TY for your reply.

Red:
I agree.

Blue:
The question is posed as it is to allow for individuals to express under which circumstances they feel the Senate or individual Senators should be subject to such a charge.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. The filibuster should not be eliminated but it should be restored to it’s original meaning to where the person(s) wanting to filibuster a bill have to stand and speak. Currently, they just file a filibuster and they needn’t spend a moment standing before the body.

2. No. I would be all for changing the Senate rules via constitutional amendment to give the document voice to where it is currently silent. But your definition is way too wide. One could make the argument that if a Senator didn’t vote for military action…they are being derelict

TY for your reply.

Red:
I agree.

Blue:
The question is posed as it is to allow for individuals to express under which circumstances they feel the Senate or individual Senators should be subject to such a charge.

I see you ignored my response I wonder why that is?

 

[320 Years of History]

No the filibuster should not be eliminated because it provides the minority a potential say in decision making. We are NOT designed to be at the whim of the majority.

Why would you think Senators could be charged with dereliction of duty? Exactly what have the been derelict at? And if you claim they have failed to pass some legislation then I assume you had a HUGE problem when the Dems ran the Senate and ignored over 200 bills from the House.

I see you ignored my response I wonder why that is?

Oh, my....

I didn't have anything to say about your post because:

• Your remark favors the filibuster due to, as you perceive, it's being consistent with the original design theme of the Senate itself, that is, to provide an element of stability and put all states on an equal level, yet the filibuster was not anything possible in the original design of that body's rules. Moreover, you failed to address how and why it is that today we observers, citizens, should consider what amounts to an accident as being part of the original Senate design intent. I'm not saying that it cannot be so seen; I observe that it is not and you didn't make the case for viewing it as such and since the facts of the original design of the Senate and its rules don't support your claim, you should have. That you didn't makes your comment weak.
• The filibuster doesn't provide a say in decision making. On the contrary, it provides a means for preventing a decision from being made. It is precisely the opposite of decision making.
• You note that we (presumably the nation, unless you happen to be a U.S. Senator, but you haven't stated you are) are not designed to be at the whim of the majority, and yet, it is the majority who elect every single member of Congress (barring a few exceptional circumstances arising) and it is the majority of the electorate who have put every President but one into office.
• You responded to the question about dereliction of duty with a question rather than with a direct answer to the questions asked. You then followed the question with a statement that injects party affiliation into the matter, and the question I asked has no bearing on what party holds sway at any given point in time. Moreover, that statement addressed neither the first nor second questions asked pertaining to dereliction of duty; thus it's not material to the topic, particularly seeing as I hadn't at that time offered any thoughts about the answers to any of the questions. (I haven't largely because I haven't had the time to do so.)

The reasons above are those pertaining directly to your comments that led me to say nothing about them. Observing the above, I determined you aren't ready to have an intellectually driven discussion of the matter and I really don't want to engage in a partisan discussion on this topic.

I also have reasons of my own that are driven by your remarks, but not as directly as the ones noted above.

• I figured that the remarks above are ones you wouldn't consider "nice." So I decided for this thread that having nothing "nice" to say, I'd instead say nothing.
• I decided you aren't well informed enough to have a discussion with me on this topic. I decided that because despite my having provided a link that gives a short overview of the history of the filibuster, you made no reference to that content or any others. That led me to assume that any discussion I have with you will be based on little that is substantive and that also has objective facts that you'd assemble into a cogent inductive case for your position.
• Unlike candycorn, you didn't bring up a fact pertaining to the nature of the filibuster. What you presented was a debatable assertion about something that isn't an outright fact of history and you failed to support your assertion. I have no interest in engaging on this topic with folks who do that.

That all said, I did thank you for participating in the thread. Given the quality of content you shared, that's as far as I cared to go with your comments.

P.S.
I had no desire to tell you all the above, but you asked, so now you know.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So Because in a short document that CLEARLY establishes that the Senate will be allowed to make their own rules it does not precisely define the filibuster it should not exist? The Senate by law and the Constitution make their own rules, they establish what procedures will be followed and how debate will be handled. That the filibuster is IN FACT a rule ESTABLISHED by the senate on how and why it runs debates on bills makes it just as valid and just as serious as ANY other rule they use or enforce. In fact the Constitution is silent on what the Senate should do to control debate on laws and procedures instead just establishing that that BODY will by itself create establish and use such rules as it sees fit. Or are you arguing because the Filibuster might not have been used in the first Congress that the Senate should not have created the system? Again ignoring that the Constitution leaves to the Senate the power to establish the rules that Govern its operation totally to the Senate?

As for why the Filibuster is important US Law and Government are designed so that a mob does NOT decide the fate of verdicts or laws. It is established that a simple majority does NOT have the authority or power to dictate to the minority except in very specific limited circumstances. That is true in Government and in the Legal system It is true in the Senate and has been since the beginning. A Majority may elect people but the law states as does the Constitution that we the people are represented by our elected officials. That means even the MINORITY has rights and is to be represented by this Government in the Senate and the House and through the President.

Your personal opinion is in fact not a valid reason to dismiss another opinion nor to advocate that others opinions be ignored or disparaged.

So I ask again? Why would the Filibuster be a bad rule? What makes you think that the Senate does not have the authority and power to establish the Filibuster as a rule and to use and enforce its use? Be specific cite for us where in the original documents establishing the Senate the filibuster is not a valid tool?

Your entire complaint is that when the Senate was formed they did not create the Filibuster therefore we should not have the filibuster. I can probably do a bit of research and find a lot of rules and procedures that have been created by the Senate over the Course of this Country's history that in fact were not originally in the first Senate. Does that mean they are all bad? That they should all be voided?

Once again the Filibuster is an important tool that gives the solid minority a voice against a bare majority as was intended by the Founding fathers when they created the system of checks and balances in our Government. Important decisions with few exceptions should not be at the whim of 51 Senators.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just researched it the filibuster became possible in 1806 due to a change in Senate rules. the First filibuster occurred in 1837. Cloture was voted as a rule I believe in 1917.

So going by the first example 1837, the fact is the Senate has NEVER in 189 years voted to do away with the filibuster. Even knowing what it was, what it did or could do. The closest is the nuclear option in 2013.Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[longknife]

As almost every part of our Constitution, the ability to speak for extraordinary lengths of time came from American Indian tribes in the northeast that our founders were familiar with. In their customs, clans were equal to congressional districts and tribes equaled states.

Indians were famous for their lengthy discussions of subjects. They would go on for weeks on end, people standing to speak for endless hours.

The filibuster also came from Roman times, again in the Roman Senate.

And, one has to remember that Senate deliberations are actually the individual states seeking a consensus on a subject and the Senators are supposed to be following the wishes of their states.

And also remember, it was the DEMOCRATIC Senate Leader who came up with the nuclear option of being able to stop a filibuster by a mere majority of the senate, not the 2/3rds that was in force forever.

Finally, our illustrious Senators have gotten so lazy that most of the time it's the mere threat of a filibuster that ties up legislation forever. And others, too chicken to be identified, simply tie up nominations by SECRET opposition to them!!!!!

 

[320 Years of History]

So Because in a short document that CLEARLY establishes that the Senate will be allowed to make their own rules it does not precisely define the filibuster it should not exist? The Senate by law and the Constitution make their own rules, they establish what procedures will be followed and how debate will be handled. That the filibuster is IN FACT a rule ESTABLISHED by the senate on how and why it runs debates on bills makes it just as valid and just as serious as ANY other rule they use or enforce. In fact the Constitution is silent on what the Senate should do to control debate on laws and procedures instead just establishing that that BODY will by itself create establish and use such rules as it sees fit. Or are you arguing because the Filibuster might not have been used in the first Congress that the Senate should not have created the system? Again ignoring that the Constitution leaves to the Senate the power to establish the rules that Govern its operation totally to the Senate?

As for why the Filibuster is important US Law and Government are designed so that a mob does NOT decide the fate of verdicts or laws. It is established that a simple majority does NOT have the authority or power to dictate to the minority except in very specific limited circumstances. That is true in Government and in the Legal system It is true in the Senate and has been since the beginning. A Majority may elect people but the law states as does the Constitution that we the people are represented by our elected officials. That means even the MINORITY has rights and is to be represented by this Government in the Senate and the House and through the President.

Your personal opinion is in fact not a valid reason to dismiss another opinion nor to advocate that others opinions be ignored or disparaged.

So I ask again? Why would the Filibuster be a bad rule? What makes you think that the Senate does not have the authority and power to establish the Filibuster as a rule and to use and enforce its use? Be specific cite for us where in the original documents establishing the Senate the filibuster is not a valid tool?

Your entire complaint is that when the Senate was formed they did not create the Filibuster therefore we should not have the filibuster. I can probably do a bit of research and find a lot of rules and procedures that have been created by the Senate over the Course of this Country's history that in fact were not originally in the first Senate. Does that mean they are all bad? That they should all be voided?

Once again the Filibuster is an important tool that gives the solid minority a voice against a bare majority as was intended by the Founding fathers when they created the system of checks and balances in our Government. Important decisions with few exceptions should not be at the whim of 51 Senators.

Red:
I haven't offered an opinion about the filibuster. Not even in my response to your inquiry about why I didn't respond to your first post did I offer one.

 

[candycorn]

1. The filibuster should not be eliminated but it should be restored to it’s original meaning to where the person(s) wanting to filibuster a bill have to stand and speak. Currently, they just file a filibuster and they needn’t spend a moment standing before the body.

2. No. I would be all for changing the Senate rules via constitutional amendment to give the document voice to where it is currently silent. But your definition is way too wide. One could make the argument that if a Senator didn’t vote for military action…they are being derelict

TY for your reply.

Red:
I agree.

Blue:
The question is posed as it is to allow for individuals to express under which circumstances they feel the Senate or individual Senators should be subject to such a charge.

I still don't think there is (or should be) a way to indict a Senator for DoD.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The whole purpose of the Senate is to keep the mob from ruling the country. The filibuster (before being screwed up by Dingy Harry, was to make the Senate slow down and carefully ponder its actions.

The whole purpose of the Senate was to entice the empty states into the union. Frankly, as the Trump would say, we got a terrible deal. I'm for renegotiating.

 

[320 Years of History]

1. The filibuster should not be eliminated but it should be restored to it’s original meaning to where the person(s) wanting to filibuster a bill have to stand and speak. Currently, they just file a filibuster and they needn’t spend a moment standing before the body.

2. No. I would be all for changing the Senate rules via constitutional amendment to give the document voice to where it is currently silent. But your definition is way too wide. One could make the argument that if a Senator didn’t vote for military action…they are being derelict

TY for your reply.

Red:
I agree.

Blue:
The question is posed as it is to allow for individuals to express under which circumstances they feel the Senate or individual Senators should be subject to such a charge.

I still don't think there is (or should be) a way to indict a Senator for DoD.

Well, I guess you and I will just disagree.

I see senator as a job just as I see doctor or dishwasher as a job. For nearly every other job in the country, except for maybe some selected few others along with U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator, failing to do one's job, and in a timely manner, is cause for termination. Unfortunately, the only ways I know of to terminate a Senator (or U.S. Representative or U.S. President) are:

1. indict them in the House and convict them in the Senate,
2. indict and convict them in a criminal trial, or
3. have the body in which they sit willfully expel them.

Since the first and last of those options are often going to be partisan affairs, the only real recourse that voters have and that is somewhat timely is criminal indictment for dereliction of duty.

 

[longknife]

The whole purpose of the Senate is to keep the mob from ruling the country. The filibuster (before being screwed up by Dingy Harry, was to make the Senate slow down and carefully ponder its actions.

The whole purpose of the Senate was to entice the empty states into the union. Frankly, as the Trump would say, we got a terrible deal. I'm for renegotiating.

Please explain where you come up with this insane idea - and provide references.

If you can.

 

[320 Years of History]

The whole purpose of the Senate is to keep the mob from ruling the country. The filibuster (before being screwed up by Dingy Harry, was to make the Senate slow down and carefully ponder its actions.

The whole purpose of the Senate was to entice the empty states into the union. Frankly, as the Trump would say, we got a terrible deal. I'm for renegotiating.

I have to say that my understanding of the design and intent of the Senate is to counterbalance the weight of numbers that drives decision making in the House. It is to make small and large states equal with regard to one third of the legislative process.

I was earlier willing to make do without saying that because you've not written anything that specifically pertains to that design aspect in replying to the thread questions. I ignored longknife's initial mention of the purpose of the Senate because his remark and that design attribute don't address the thread questions either.

Frankly, I'd just as soon the whole matter of the Senate's design be left ignored for it's not relevant to whether a Senator or the Senate as a whole perform(s) their/its job as indicated in the Constitution.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The whole purpose of the Senate is to keep the mob from ruling the country. The filibuster (before being screwed up by Dingy Harry, was to make the Senate slow down and carefully ponder its actions.

The whole purpose of the Senate was to entice the empty states into the union. Frankly, as the Trump would say, we got a terrible deal. I'm for renegotiating.

Please explain where you come up with this insane idea - and provide references.

If you can.

The insane idea called the Great Compromise of 1787? Did you actually attend school, or just fail to pay any attention while you were there?

 

[Elvis Obama]

The whole purpose of the Senate is to keep the mob from ruling the country. The filibuster (before being screwed up by Dingy Harry, was to make the Senate slow down and carefully ponder its actions.

The whole purpose of the Senate was to entice the empty states into the union. Frankly, as the Trump would say, we got a terrible deal. I'm for renegotiating.

I have to say that my understanding of the design and intent of the Senate is to counterbalance the weight of numbers that drives decision making in the House. It is to make small and large states equal with regard to one third of the legislative process.

I was earlier willing to make do without saying that because you've not written anything that specifically pertains to that design aspect in replying to the thread questions. I ignored longknife's initial mention of the purpose of the Senate because his remark and that design attribute don't address the thread questions either.

Frankly, I'd just as soon the whole matter of the Senate's design be left ignored for it's not relevant to whether a Senator or the Senate as a whole perform(s) their/its job as indicated in the Constitution.

No, I did intend to address the OP, but I didn't get around to it yet. I just find the idea that the purpose of the senate was to prevent mob rule pretty funny. The evolution of government throughout history has been a series of power grabs. The people in power in the states didn't want to give up any more of their power than they had to in order to get a republic. The small states got too good of a deal in this case, and the Senate has always been compromised as a result. The situation has only grown worse in the intervening years. It makes a mockery of representation.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html

As far as the OP goes,

1- The filibuster is intended to offer a means to counterbalance legislative domination by the majority. It has been, as all such rules have been, compromised and corrupted. I'm not sure however, that it benefits from being a measure of a person's bladder control, or ability to remain on their feet, or their dramatic skills in reading Dr. Seuss. On the plus side, it sure can be effective political theater. It can also be Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham.

2- DOD? A case can be made for anything, I suppose. Nixon should have paid for Watergate, because the important principle is that no one is above the law. Nixon shouldn't have paid for Watergate because the cost of prosecuting the president outweighs the possible benefits. Which position is right? I dunno. Emotionally I would have preferred prosecuting him. Practically? I dunno.

Is McConnell, in adopting a policy of complete obstructionism, actually providing representation? Is that what his constituency really wants? If so, can it be characterized as criminal? More importantly, is any worthwhile purpose served by prosecuting them? Dereliction of duty is a term I would apply to voters before I would apply it to representatives.