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.
Most people know about the origins of the Filibuster. A quirk in U.S. Senate rules, says that people can go on talking endlessly, about anything they like, during the "debate" period for a bill, and no one can stop them. This allows a small number of people, trading off their speech right, to bring the entire Senate to a halt, and prevent any action on whatever bill the talker(s) oppose. Years ago, it required a 2/3 supermajority vote in the Senate, to invoke "cloture" and force the talking to stop so they could get on to a vote.
This would have the effect of causing a huge furor in government, which quickly spread to the press and the attention of the voters (people who usually didn't pay much attention to Senate business). The people filibustering a bill, did it with exactly this in mind: To bring the bill (and the controversy around it) to the atttention of the people. They believed that the people would side with them, if they knew what was going on, and would call their Senators and Congressmen to quit supporting the bill being filibustered. Sometimes the filibusterers were right about the people supporting them, and sometimes they were wrong. But whichever, that was their intention.
Then in 1975, the Senate changed the rules. Now it only took a 60% majority (60 out of 100 Senators) to invoke cloture and end the filibuster. And it became a "silent filibuster", where only that particular bill now needed the supermajority... but the rest of Senate business could proceed, instead of ALL Senate business being halted while the filibuster went on.
So, a filibuster became "not such a big deal"... filibusters could go on all the time, and weren't particularly disruptive. Senators (particularly those in the majority) praised the change, pointing out that now the Senate could do its legislating more smoothly and efficiently.
BUT... this violates one of the most basic principles of American government, as designed by the Framers. They deliberately designed the U.S. Government to NOT be "smooth and efficient".
The Framers were basically conservative men. They believed that society would work the best, and provide the greatest safety and freedom for its people, if governmental interference were minimized. To that end, they designed a Federal government where four very different groups of people, all had to agree on a law, before it went into force. The Framers decided that if any one of those four groups objected, that should be enough reason to dump the bill and keep the people free of its restrictions and encumberances.
The four groups were, of course, (1) Citizen-legislators who had real jobs in the real world, who took two years off to join the legislature and then went back to their real jobs afterward (House of Representatives); (2) Professional politicians whose job it was to make sure the Fed govt did not take powers that should have been left to the states, and so were appointed by their state governments to a six-year term (Senate) to protect the State's authority; (3) An Executive officer whose job was to carry out the laws passed by the first two groups but to veto any law he considered unsuitable (President); and (4) a group of judges who would examine actual cases where someone complained his rights were violated by the exercise of a law passed by the first three groups (Supreme Court).
Only if all four of those very different groups ALL agreed that a law was good, would it be allowed to stay in force. If any one of them disagreed, the law was either never enacted, or was tossed out shortly afterward. The whole purpose of this clumsy, cantankerous arrangement, was to PREVENT as many laws as possible, from being imposed on the American people; and to leave them free to do as much as possible WITHOUT government restriction or interference. Only a relatively few laws were to be enacted: things that most people in ALL groups agreed we needed, and agreed were permitted by the Constitution.
People who praise the "silent filibuster" for its tendency to make Senate legislation "smoother and easier", have forgotten that it's not supposed to be smooth OR easy. The purpose of the U.S. Government, is to ensure FREEDOM, not to ensure government restriction. And that's all any law can do: restrict and/or punish people.
The reason it's always been possible for one guy (or one small group) to block ALL legislation in the Senate, is so that one guy can **** off a lot of people (including the general public who otherwise weren't paying much attention) and get them to examine what's going on. What is this one guy so concerned about, that he sees fit to bring the entire Senate to a halt and prevent ANY legislation?
The purpose of a filibuster, is to ignite furious debate among a much wider segment of the population, than the Senate usually gets. And the guy doing the filibustering, does it because he believes that when lots of the public get involved, his side is more likely to win. Those large numbers of people, will call or write their Senators and tell them to kill the bill; since he believes the majority of the American people would actually OPPOSE the bill if they knew the details.
The introduction of the "silent filibuster" in 1975, took away this valuable (if disruptive) safety valve, and ensured that most American people (who seldom pay attention to what's going on in the Senate) would remain ignorant of the bad things the one person finds in the bill. The 1975 change still allows a "noisy filibuster" IF the Senate Majority Leader insists on that kind. But the majority is the LAST group that wants massive public attention to a bill they can pass with a quiet vote.
I last talked about bringing back the "noisy filibuster", when Republicans had the majority in the Senate and Democrats were filibustering things, all without getting much of the public involved. Now the shoe is on the other foot, with Democrats in the majority and Republicans filibustering things. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. In both cases, I wish the filibusters would cause MAJOR disruptions, and that the issues involved would get massive attention from the voting public, with massive calls to their Senators and Representatives following, to settle the matter quickly one way or another.
Bring back the "noisy filibuster" - a filibuster which must halt ALL activity in the Senate, hit all the headlines, and cause massive "What the h*ll??" reactions from as many voters as possible. And keep the "noisy filibuster" in place, no matter which party is in the majority.
Unfortunately, it's not likely that the Senate will change its own rules (again) to bring back the "noisy filibuster", no matter which party is in the majority.
The Noisy Filibuster was eliminated in 1975, by a vote of the majority (Democrat at the time), as any rules change must be. And it was eliminated because the majority didn't like it... which was because it was EFFECTIVE in letting the minority have a disproportionate influence.
And it would take a majority to restore the Noisy Filibuster... but that same majority is the group that DOESN'T want the other side (the minority) to have that disproportionate influence.
So it ain't gonna happen.
Even though it should. No matter which party is in the majority.
The problem is that until the Dems were elected in 2006, there was a gentleman's agreement to use the filibuster sparingly. Now, the Reps use it to stop everything. That's abuse.
An excellent posting, Little Acorn. I agree. I also appreciate your thoughts without resorting to youtube, wikipedia, or other crutch. Rep coming your way.
Looks like the Senatorial "good old boy" network is more powerful than anything Americans want. The Senate is notoriously fraternal. Democrats suddenly become republicans when it suits them.
Dems had the wind at their backs on this issue, yet when push comes to shove some like Reid just cave. Pathetic, since he is a leader with power who spoke forcefully in the past.
Look at our present situation: Americans at large want these things, yet only movers and shakers (corporations, the wealthy, elected officeholders) get what they want. What's wrong with this picture - does it sound like democracy? The Washington/corporate big-money bubble is a self-sustaining entity, a world unto itself which has little connection with the people. It decides who can run for office, and we citizens just choose from the menu. Appointees are bankers and other corporatists who probably retain allegiances to their former industries and look to them for possible future employment. What kind of legislation can middle class Americans expect from this setup?
Look how easily Ron Paul and third-party candidates were marginalized by the corporate-owned media.
This latest cave by Reid just makes me wonder if people can be bought off - huge corporations and the republican base have the money to do it. Imagine getting a note across your desk saying "We can set you up for life in exchange for agreeable legislation - think about it". I don't see why this couldn't happen consistently and in secret.
For once I actually agree with Little-Acorn and Democrats actually were told this was what was going to happen however this week we once again got sold out by the corporatist dems who, for the third time in six years, said they would reform the filibuster back to the old style "noisy" filibuster where the people filibuster would actually have to stand up and speak continuously but once again Harry Reid stabbed us in the back.
OK, a lot of information in the OP. However I have heard no one say that reform would make the senate more smooth or efficient. I have not heard this as the reason for it.
Almost 400 filibusters so far initiated by republicans to throw sand in the gears of government.
Reform is supposed to stop abuse of the practice - the absurd idea that a senator can make a single phone call, bring the senate business to a halt, then go back to watching TV. Lay more accountability on the initiator.
It's also easy to hide the perpetrator's identity from the public - the mainstream media certainly has no interest in covering something like this. This is way too easy - no wonder they like it. This little practice has just evolved over time under the radar.
Reform is supposed to stop abuse of the practice - the absurd idea that a senator can make a single phone call, bring the senate business to a halt, then go back to watching TV.
Most people who oppose the "noisy filibuster" have no idea how it's actually done, as shown by the poster above.
The good news - Rand Paul is carrying out a genuine "noisy filibuster" right now. I guess he doesn't like one of Obama's recent appointees, or something. But he is putting his money where his mouth is, standing up at the lectern himself, and talking, talking, talking. And he says he'll keep doing it until Obama addresses the issue, whatever it is. I don't know when I last saw a genuine "noisy filibuster" like this. Kudoes, Rand!
I wish him luck. He's got to sleep some time, go to the bathroom etc. It used to be that several like-minded Senators would talk in shifts, yielding time to each other so one was always talking while the others sat back, slept, ate, etc., waiting for their turn. Is Paul working with any others, to keep this going like this?
It'll be interesting to see how the media treats this. As I said in the OP, the idea is to bring ALL Senate business to a halt, in a highly public way, so that the media can broadcast the (astounding) fact, do a lot of exposes on why it's being done, talk a lot about both sides of the argument.
With the media we have today, of course, that's highly problematic. The media solidly opposes anything brought up by Rand Paul or his dad. Publicizing what he's doing, is exactly what they DON'T want to do.
How long will the media be able to ignore it? Longer than Paul (and his partners if any) can keep talking?
Hardly a surprise, since Democrat majorities try to pass far more unacceptable and unconstitutional legislation and appointments than Republicans.
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.
