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.
James Madison's and Thomas Jefferson's musings about something or other, no matter how sensible they may sound, are not "the constitution" if they are not actually in the constitution.
Pretty much.
I don't like the Hastert rule either, but Congress had and has the right to implement it.
It's constitutional as long as they have the votes.
They cannot change the rules without our approval.
Where do you dream up this stuff? Of course they can.
The Constitution says that in order for something to become law, the Senate must "pass it". It makes no rules about what constitutes "passage", either for the House or the Senate. So, the Senate itself can make its own rules about what it takes to "pass" something.
Where is the amendment, to change the authority of congress and how they do business?
They cannot change the rules without our approval.
Do they? You bet they do, peasants and ordinary people. Now shut up and be a good subject of the state.
I'd be more willing to entertain your arguments if you had made them when the Obama administration was in power. Why didn't the filibuster fill you with outrage back then? Will you still be outraged about it when another Democratic administration is in power? Hmmmmmm?
I'd be more willing to entertain your arguments if you had made them when the Obama administration was in power. Why didn't the filibuster fill you with outrage back then? Will you still be outraged about it when another Democratic administration is in power? Hmmmmmm?
I am not against the Filibuster. I do not like the 60 vote threshold for something to pass. I said the same when Obama was president but the only way to get rid of that is to get rid of those who support it.
Didnt seem to be a problem for pubs in the Obama Presidency when they used the filibuster 500+ times.
It wasn't any more a problem for the Republicans when they used it as much against Clinton and Carter.
The Constitution says nothing about most things that make our government work as an organization.
The Constitution is not supposed to be a list of the laws and customs that make government work; the Constitution is the document that authorized the governmental powers of our democracy, and makes those powers legitimate.
The filibuster was created for one thing- to allow time for consideration. Rushing to approve of an unwise law can be a dangerous and disastrous thing for a democracy.
Slowing down a decision allows time for more consideration and a way of preventing impatience from taking over. A filibuster allows all the points of dispute to be considered, re-considered, allows unnoticed elements that are important brought forth, and allows the benefits and detriments of a bill to be carefully weighed.
It is also well used to strengthen a party's support or rejection of a bill, and is a good way some obscure member of Congress can make himself made known. Filibusters are always a good way of putting a debate into widespread public attention.
No one likes them, except for the person who's filibustering, but they serve many useful purposes.
Until some better argumentative device is created as a replacement, the filibuster will remain in the Congressional rules.
They note that the Constitution's framers did not intend to permit dilatory tactics that interfered with majority rule. James Madison, who's credited as the primary author of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist 58 that requiring more than a simple majority to pass legislation would violate "the fundamental principle of free government."
Madison said, "It would no longer be the majority that would rule." "The power would be transferred to the minority."
In his "Manual of Parliamentary Procedure," which was officially adopted by the early Congress, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously."
The Constitution generally only requires a majority to take legislative action and specifically lays out where a supermajority is required (as in, for example, the requirement that two-thirds of senators vote to remove an officer impeached by the House).
As the Supreme Court explained in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, where the Constitution enumerates exceptions to a general rule, those exceptions may be deemed the only ones legally available.
In addition, the text also specifies that "a Majority of each house of congress shall constitute a quorum to do Business." Today the filibuster requires 60 votes to do much of the Senate's business, such as enacting legislation or confirming judicial and cabinet nominees.
Both parties have wanted to end the filibuster and to give the President of their own party a line item veto. Fantasy. Not worth discussing.
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.
