Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And even then, filibusters were a rare annoyance. Between 1840 and 1900, there were 16 filibusters. Between 2009 and 2010, there were more than 130. But that’s changed. Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid says that “60 votes are required for just about everything.”
Not necessarily. But it should be forced to go back to what it once was.
The filibuster, in its original form, said that any Senator could stand up and talk about anything they'd like, for as long as they like, and the Senate couldn't vote until that talk was over.
Senators used to stand up for DAYS and talk, they'd bring cots into the Senate to sleep there.
Now its a filibuster that is in name only. Its a motion put forward. Unless 60 members vote to end it, its effective forever.
Make them talk, make them look ridiculous, see how many filibusters actually stand up.
For all of you constitutionalist out there who always mention that the federal government wasn’t meant to do this or that; how do you feel?
Quote:
In 1806, the Senate, on the advice of Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated and redundant. One change it made was to delete something called “the previous question” motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about and move to the next topic. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used. Senators were gentlemen. They knew when to stop talking.
No, not mob rule. Actually smaller states have much more power for their size then larger states. The two Senators from Maine have as much power, or more really, then the two Senators from Texas.
Its the smaller population over-ruling the larger population in the Senate many times, which is the exact opposite of mob rule.
See most constitutionalists only invoke what the framers meant when it suits them. This is not mob rule. It’s a proposition to roll back the power of obstructionist.
It's interesting to note how much bad legislation gets passed in spite of the threat of filibuster. We couldn't get 40 Senators to band together to oppose the bridge to nowhere, or almost $1 million to provide blackberry phones for smokers?
Tea party leaders like Ana Puig are focused on the Senate this cycle, which I think is very smart. With 40 principled Senators, we could stop all of the wasteful spending and reverse course away from the cliff towards which we are headed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
