Will the Senate scrap the filibuster?

[daveman]

Leftwingshitflinger can chock this thread up as an epic FAIL.

Dave? You are correct. This is not a Constitutional matter.

No, he just doesn't like that the rule will benefit Republicans.

Oh I agree. This is where the partisanship needs to cease. These people are placing party over country...and the country is losing in the process...it's all around us.

It needs to cease. I'm frankly tired of it, and angry the longer the games continue.

The OP still fails in any regard with the premise, and is part of the problem.

~T

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes. Make it so if someone wants to filibuster a bill, they have to stand there and talk for hours without sitting down.

The current situation has just translated to "Every bill needs 60 votes to pass", which isn't the way it's supposed to be.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You did not answer my question:
What, specifically, about the 60-vote rule for cloture violates what specific part of the Constitution?

60 votes circumvents the majority vote requirement

Where does it say the Senate can't vote to change the rules?

The Senate has the Constitutional Authority to establish It's own Rules. Separation Of Powers, they have the Right to run their Own Body as they see fit. The Senate created the 60-40 Rule.

Yes.

And they should change it.

 

[Intense]

Yes. Make it so if someone wants to filibuster a bill, they have to stand there and talk for hours without sitting down.

The current situation has just translated to "Every bill needs 60 votes to pass", which isn't the way it's supposed to be.

I'd agree about a filibuster needing an individual or group to stay on the floor, it is a serious measure, and should be backed with serious commitment. It is part of what makes the Senate special. Simple Majorities are too whimsical, either way, the 60/40 rule is a higher bar. The Rule for Constitutional Amendment is 2/3 majority to bring an issue up for debate and 3/4 to ratify. The high bar is there for a reason and acts as a weight against the spontaneous flavor of the month. It is safer not making a mistake in the first place than making it in spades, having to undo it later. The higher bar serves us well.

 

[Intense]

60 votes circumvents the majority vote requirement

Where does it say the Senate can't vote to change the rules?

The Senate has the Constitutional Authority to establish It's own Rules. Separation Of Powers, they have the Right to run their Own Body as they see fit. The Senate created the 60-40 Rule.

Yes.

And they should change it.

That's a matter for the Senate to decide, not you or I. It should be decided with forethought, not spontaneously out of spite because one side or the other didn't get their toy. The 60/40 rule played to DNC advantage through most of the Bush Administration. You even used it to block Appointments, which was unprecedented, I believe, though I may be wrong on that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes. Make it so if someone wants to filibuster a bill, they have to stand there and talk for hours without sitting down.

The current situation has just translated to "Every bill needs 60 votes to pass", which isn't the way it's supposed to be.

I'd agree about a filibuster needing an individual or group to stay on the floor, it is a serious measure, and should be backed with serious commitment. It is part of what makes the Senate special. Simple Majorities are too whimsical, either way, the 60/40 rule is a higher bar. The Rule for Constitutional Amendment is 2/3 majority to bring an issue up for debate and 3/4 to ratify. The high bar is there for a reason and acts as a weight against the spontaneous flavor of the month. It is safer not making a mistake in the first place than making it in spades, having to undo it later. The higher bar serves us well.

I agree with the higher bar for Constitutional Amendments and ratification.

But for everyday business? This 60/40 nonsense just throws gasoline on the partisan fires.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Senate has the Constitutional Authority to establish It's own Rules. Separation Of Powers, they have the Right to run their Own Body as they see fit. The Senate created the 60-40 Rule.

Yes.

And they should change it.

That's a matter for the Senate to decide, not you or I. It should be decided with forethought, not spontaneously out of spite because one side or the other didn't get their toy. The 60/40 rule played to DNC advantage through most of the Bush Administration. You even used it to block Appointments, which was unprecedented, I believe, though I may be wrong on that.

Let's be clear on one thing here: *I* didn't do anything. I'm a registered Democrat for business reasons, my politics differ VERY much from the views of the Democratic Party.

I'm much closer to being an anarchist than a Democrat.

And I know that I don't get to decide. Just stating my opinion, nothing more.

 

[Intense]

Yes.

And they should change it.

That's a matter for the Senate to decide, not you or I. It should be decided with forethought, not spontaneously out of spite because one side or the other didn't get their toy. The 60/40 rule played to DNC advantage through most of the Bush Administration. You even used it to block Appointments, which was unprecedented, I believe, though I may be wrong on that.

Let's be clear on one thing here: *I* didn't do anything. I'm a registered Democrat for business reasons, my politics differ VERY much from the views of the Democratic Party.

I'm much closer to being an anarchist than a Democrat.

And I know that I don't get to decide. Just stating my opinion, nothing more.

You may not believe this, but I have just a tiny bit of Anarchist blood in me too.

Anyway, on the bright side, The Senate came up with that rule on it's own, personally I think it helps limit abuse. Amendment is a 75% bar, thats tough to overcome, a 60% bar isn't so dramatic. Yes good and bad was done with it, yet it makes the dominant force have to try a little bit harder.




Filibuster and Cloture


19th Century Filibuster




Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. There is something about the voice of the minority being better supported. If the Senate goes Republican in 2012, you are going to want it.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Filibuster and Cloture

 

[Article 15]

Will the Senate scrap the filibuster on January 5? - The Week

A large group of Democratic senators, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, wants to reform the filibuster process on January 5, the first day of the new Congress — when, according to precedent, the incoming Senate majority can alter the rules by a simple majority vote without fear of the process itself being filibustered. Although Reid's exact plans are unknown, the changes would reportedly require legislators to be speaking on the Senate floor in order to block a proposed bill (see Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). Will this work, and is it constitutional for Democrats to even be trying?

Despite the recent abuse of the filibuster by Senate Republicans this is a badddddddddddddddd idea. I'm all for doing away with anonymous holds.

 

[Article 15]

But the idea of making the filibustering party actually do the filibustering in the literal sense sounds appealing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah... talk of this always after power shifts... don't think it's gonna happen though

Of course it won't, because in two more years the Republicans might have a clear majority in the Senate, and this would blow up in their faces then. They will bluster and blow air, but they won't change the rules. Besides, it is not that hard to keep a real filibuster going if a group of Senators want to. The rules don't let the Senator take bathroom or food breaks, but he can yield for a question and that question could easily last for hours. All it will really do is make the the people who want to break the filibuster hang around for hours and hours listening to boring talk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Filibuster was a quaint, hardly used custom until recent Congresses.

It is now used to change the Constitutional requirement of a majority vote in the Senate to pass legislation. Rather than being used for crucial legislation it has become a defacto 60% majority to pass laws.

Both sides should sign up to filibuster reforms since both sides have been abusing it.

The Democrats may benefit for now, but both sides, and more importantly, the country will benefit from ending the filibuster

The rules were changed to call something that is not a filibuster by the same name. Crying about something that is not a filibuster and wanting to eliminate a time honored tradition because both parties are abusing something that has nothing to do with what you are crying about is ridiculous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Says he who apparently has not read the Constitution.

Article I, Section 5:
...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

This includes requiring a super-majority vote to end debate.

...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

Which means they can change the rules at the start of a session

It also means that requiring a 60% vote to end debate before you can actually vote on a bill is completely witnin the bounds of our beloved Constitution.

They can even require a super majority, and probably would love to if the Republicans had 60 seats.

 

[mdn2000]

Why destroy something the Democrats wrote the book on, Misuse of the Filibuster.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness

I see you've given up on the silliness that was your argument that the fillibuster violates the Constitution.

Not in the least. The intent of the Constitution was a majority vote not a 60 percent vote

How stupid is it to need 60% approval to proceed to a 51% vote?

For a man who claims to love the Constitution you really have no idea what it says. Article 1 Section 3 says (in part):

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

No where does it say that laws will pass by a simple majority, it says only that the only way the Vice President gets a vote is if, and only if, the Senate is evenly divided.

 

[winterwinter]

I see you've given up on the silliness that was your argument that the fillibuster violates the Constitution.

Not in the least. The intent of the Constitution was a majority vote not a 60 percent vote

How stupid is it to need 60% approval to proceed to a 51% vote?

For a man who claims to love the Constitution you really have no idea what it says. Article 1 Section 3 says (in part):

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

No where does it say that laws will pass by a simple majority, it says only that the only way the Vice President gets a vote is if, and only if, the Senate is evenly divided.


[/QUOT]

Senate divided? sounds good thing.

 

[rightwinger]

I see you've given up on the silliness that was your argument that the fillibuster violates the Constitution.

For a man who claims to love the Constitution you really have no idea what it says. Article 1 Section 3 says (in part):

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

No where does it say that laws will pass by a simple majority, it says only that the only way the Vice President gets a vote is if, and only if, the Senate is evenly divided.


Math wasn't your best subject was it?

100 senators equally divided on a vote= 50

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For a man who claims to love the Constitution you really have no idea what it says. Article 1 Section 3 says (in part):

No where does it say that laws will pass by a simple majority, it says only that the only way the Vice President gets a vote is if, and only if, the Senate is evenly divided.

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

100 senators equally divided on a vote= 50

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Math wasn't your best subject was it?

100 senators equally divided on a vote= 50

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?