Is the filibuster a safeguard of democracy? Does this Senate policy of unlimited debate help as the New York Times said, “fend off actions of a bare majority of the Senate, but deeply offensive to the minority.”? Or has the filibuster become a political tool used by the minority party to prevent the majority party from effectively governing the country? Since the election of 2008, the Republican Party, with only 41 members, has used this tactic more than 130 times, forcing 112 cloture votes; doubling the Democratic Party’s record during its times when it was the minority party. The use of the filibuster can bring legislative business to a standstill. Since we are in such dire economic times, some feel the need for the government to act quickly and decisively. This group sees the filibuster as an impediment to effective government. As a result, reporter Karen Tumulty argues it may time to finish the job that Henry Clay proposed back in 1812—abolish the filibuster rule in the US Senate. Is that a prudent step for American democracy? Is the filibuster the problem with our legislative gridlock? I am not sure.
I, too, am frustrated with the lack of action taken by Congress over the last year. But I also understand the principle of checks and balances so dear to our “founding fathers”. The intention of the filibuster was to “slow down” the law-making process to insure the rights of the minority were not trampled by the majority. Certainly James Madison would have concurred. It was he, who believed in “majority rule, but with minority rights”. The tyranny of majority rule can be as oppressive as any form of government. When used sparingly and for the proper reasons, the filibuster can be a reasonable tool—a tool of reason. Historically, the filibuster has been used sparingly—an average of once a year in the 1950’s. But since the 2000 election, politics have been increasingly more partisan. During the Bush era, Democrats, the minority party, used or threatened to use the filibuster to block conservative federal court appointments. Republicans floated an idea called the “nuclear option” to eliminate the need of a super majority (60 votes) on federal court nominees. To protect the Senate tradition of the filibuster, a bipartisan group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans called the “Gang of 14”, pledged this group would not filibuster except in “extraordinary circumstances”, if the Republicans would oppose the “nuclear option”. Gridlock ended. The filibuster was not abused. The tradition was preserved. Why can we not reach some similar agreement today? Instead we see politicians using the filibuster or threat of a filibuster as a way to score points with constituents or interest groups. Really, can the Republican Party claim that there have 130 “extraordinary circumstances” since 2008 that have justified their use of a filibuster? Certainly the motives of the Republican Party have to be questioned. It would appear that they are trying to prevent the majority party from “governing successfully”. However do we want to throw away the filibuster—an age-old tradition that has most instances served its purpose to check power and protect minority rights? Instead why can’t politicians pledge to use the tool in the manner it was intended? The problem isn’t the filibuster. The problem is the human trait of greed, power, and selfishness. If the filibuster would be used as our early leaders hoped it would, it can continue to be an effective protector of liberty. If Senators don’t want to be statesmen, but rather self-serving politicians, then it may be time to end the tradition.
42 comments:
It's interesting that you would mention the human element as a factor of congressional rulings; only recently has it seemed to have a notable effect, select historical exceptions granted.
In any case, I think the filibuster was a stupid idea to begin with: if they really wanted a way for the minority party to 'stand up for themselves', the least they could do is come up with something a bit more practical. My understanding of the subject may be narrow, but it doesn't take a genius to see that reading from the phonebook is hardly an effective way to run the country.
I can see how it would have worked till now since, as you said, partisanship has really only started to show since the 2000 election; but now that politics has become a competition, there is no doubt in my mind that revoking that right would only benefit the country. I suppose you could say that the Republicans have earned such a punishment through the abuse of their rights as national leaders.
I would have to agree with Tycho... the filibuster is stupid! Tycho is right there has to be a better way for people to stop bills from passing all they are doing is annoying the crap out of people by going blah blah blah about absolutely NOTHING. Maybe this was affective way back when but times have changed the politicians need to stop butting heads with each other just because of the their title as DEMOCRATIC or REPUBLICAN. yes they may have different views but don't be an unreasonable pain in the butt.
I think the government has been and always will be corrupt. Now, more than ever, the senate is treating this like a game since the 2000 elections.Instead of thinking about the common good, each party is trying to benefit themselves by rejecting the other party's bills and makeing them seem inaffective through the filibuster. I think the filibuster is a good thing because it protects minority rights. But now it's being used way to much because either one party or both are not willing to compromise. So maybe if there was a limit to how much a party could filibuster and the other party could then use the "nuclear option" or a reconciliation, if i'm not mistaken, so some laws are actually able to pass. For an example, the health care plan. I approve the reconciliation.
I have to agree with notstephen when it comes the the government always being corrupt because when power is presented to someone they will usually let it go to their heads and they will take advantage of that power, and when they lose that power like how the republicans lost theirs, they will do anything to stay in as much control as possible like filibustering all things pro-democratic. I still believe in the filibuster but I think that there should be limits on how many times you can use a filibuster annually. This way the minority party would start using filibusters more wisely against "extraordinary" bills.
The filibuster was created with good purpose, to prevent majority tyranny in our nation and allow the minority to still have a say in passing bills. But the filibuster was only intended for extreme circumstances... And over the last decade, the power of the filibuster has been abused. The filibuster was not intended to be a threat, nor was it intended to be thrown around constantly. Over the last year we have had 130 filibusters... 130? Really? We have had that many "serious circumstances????" No, we have had 130 cases of republicans only thinking of themselves and wanting to get their way. Our constitution was not founded on getting one group of people's ways... But working together and compromising to make our country as a whole happy. I don't think we need to eliminate the filibuster, but I think there should be some kind of limit, just like Fox news said.
Well, I think I made it clear enough before, but I am personally unhappy with any sort of partisanship involving politics, especially regarding topics like this. It's not 'gathering people of similar interest', it's choosing teams. I believe it was George Washington who said, in his farewell address, that partisanship would only hurt the country in the long run.
The reason I bring this up is because, frankly, partisanship is the only thing necessitating a blatantly stupid thing like the filibuster. See, the filibuster is probably the best idea of it's kind, unfortunately, but it's not the method that is specifically bad, rather the idea in general: it's a handicap. Only there to make the losing team feel better after getting less players. Except, instead of giving that team an edge, it's just holding up the game until it ends in a tie.
I realize that one person whining about it won't make things better, but I personally think a better idea would be a system just like the current one, except that partisanship is totally removed. People would be forced to think for themselves, instead of having their team think for them. (However hard that seems to be...)
I agree with Giggles and Tycho, government really should get rid of the filibuster because there's no point in wasting everyone's time just so that a bill can't be passed. Yes, people are going to be strongly opposed to the bills in questioning but also there should be a better way to resolve this than wasting large amounts of time talking about nothing just for the sake of a bill not being able to pass. Think of all the other bills that could be in discussion or all the productive discussion they could be having about the bill in questioning. The filibuster is becoming an outrageous tool that really shouldn't be part of the government because it's only adding to the corruptness that clearly exists in today's national government.
I agree with Notstephen because he is right. The filibuster does help to protect the rights of the minority party. When used responsibly it does exactly that. But when people take advantage of this useful tool, it can end unfairly. The filibuster should be used to protect the common good but is instead used in favor of specific political parties. It is not right to talk a bill to death just because your party does not agree. The right thing to do is to have an open mind when listening to new ideas. Why not give something new a chance? Just because the filibuster has this much power does not mean that it should be used for unnecessary purposes.
I agree that the filibuster was originally created with great intentions but since then it has been taken advantage of. Politics has turned into a world where no one is willing to compromise and work for the better good. The filibuster has become a way to avoid doing the right thing and be a stubborn politician until matters start working out in your advantage. I agree with the other posts that our founding fathers intended the Filibuster to be a safety net just in case the majority party went a little out of bounds once in a while but I think that because of it the minority party feels they have the right to prevent the Senate from passing ANY bills or making any decisions that could effect the country. I am in favor of the republican party but feel that politics is turned into such a two-sided place that I don't think I can support either party in this situation. Why are two sides of the Senate fighting each other? Were they not elected to bring together our countries differences and work as one, unified body? I think the Filibuster has great intentions but it is only moving the already divided majority and minority parties farther apart.
I agree that the filibuster was originally created with great intentions but since then it has been taken advantage of. Politics has turned into a world where no one is willing to compromise and work for the better good. The filibuster has become a way to avoid doing the right thing and be a stubborn politician until matters start working out in your advantage. I agree with the other posts that our founding fathers intended the Filibuster to be a safety net just in case the majority party went a little out of bounds once in a while but I think that because of it the minority party feels they have the right to prevent the Senate from passing ANY bills or making any decisions that could effect the country. I am in favor of the republican party but feel that politics is turned into such a two-sided place that I don't think I can support either party in this situation. Why are two sides of the Senate fighting each other? Were they not elected to bring together our countries differences and work as one, unified body? I think the Filibuster has great intentions but it is only moving the already divided majority and minority parties farther apart.
It seems like the old fashion old time politics our founding fathers had placed for us to use responsibly and cooperate upon are just being ignored. What is up with parties against each other like notstephen said about it being like a game it is not a game its about running a country. We need the filibuster to protect minority rights, but it needs to be limited in order to assure that congress can come to a conclusion about a bill. Politicians need to be less concerned about winning votes for reelection and more concerned about the greater and common good for the people of the United States Of America.
I would have to agree with carlosm about our government starting to leave the ideas of our founding fathers. the filabuster was made to stop bills that had no need in our government, and thats what our founding fathers wanted it for. instead, the politicians starting these filabusters show everyone is that it doesnt matter what it really is, but about if their party thought of it or actually had any say.that being said, with the health care debates the republicans are acting childish by not wanting to compromise at all on the bill. I think that taking the filabuster out isnt the right thing to do becuase it takes away the minorities rights to slow the process down, but if they abuse it I believe theres no other way to stop it but to eliminate it. If this was old fashion politics it wouldnt have happined, but now because it seems that its one party against another, I dont think we can find another way around the issue but to put an end to the filabuster.
The filibuster is just apart of the political game. I personally love it because it keeps control with one political party. I agree with jessica when saying that the filibuster was created with good intentions. Well it has been taking advantage of and even though i am a democrat it does block out the other parties views. Thats the only reason i disagree with the filibuster, so thats the only problem.
I agree with Colleen in that congress is wasting a serious amount of time due to the filibuster, when they could be discussing or placing other bills. It is frustrating to see nothing being done in congress. I believe citizens want to see things happen they could benefit their daily lives. But I also believe it turns them off from politics when all that happens in congress is arguments that lead to filibuster. I still stand that we need filibuster to protect minority rights in extreme cases, but only in those special cases.
I think that filibuster is a good tool for the minority party becuase they do not want to have none of there ideas heard, but filibuster could still be abused by the minority party too. Right now the repulicans want to have all the bills changed to what they want and have none of the democrats idea but the democrats would not want that becuase that will have no power but still be the majority party. If republicans do not get what they want then they just use filibuster so no one gets what they want. Both parties need to compromise with each other so that they can get more bills passed. filibuster is a great tool and should not be taken away
I think filibuster show that there are two side of a story and neither one of them want to come together and say that what they think is right or wrong the just want to go with only what they think and not let any other part in even if its good to them.nothing is getting done because of the filibuster and it doesn't allow us to have a lot of change sometime that could be good but most of the time people need to see change to see that congress are agree to make a change.
I believe that the filibuster was created for the minority to be heard. I think that it is a tool that has been overused but with out it the majority would over ride the minority everytime. I think it is also a good tool because it also keeps checks and balances in order. The majority may win the vote but the minority can stop the vote from ever happening by filibustering. I like the filibuster but believe if it is abused it is a bad tool!
I agree with stokecity7 and colleen that congress is wasting so much time i disagreee though because i believe it was a good tool created for good intentions we just see the bad intentions do to the abuse lately in congress.
i believe that slowing down the law-making process by filibustering was once a wonderful idea, but in our times today, it has been taken advantage of.i strongly believe both sides need to be heard but this filibustering isn't the way at all. there is no point in standing up there, for what could be days just talking about something that doesn't even go along with the bill. there has to be a different, BETTER way for the minority to keep a bill from passing. even if filibusters are only used during "extraordinary circumstances" , what is an "extraordinary circumstance"? one situation that isn't important to someone could be important to another so then that would make all situations "extraordinary circumstances"
i agree with what stokecity said, it isn't about one group of people. it is about what everyone wants as a whole. everyone needs to put their ideas together. marjority can't rule forever but minority needs a different way of having their say in bills. i also agree with #1dukeboy, even though i don't think it should continue, filibustering is part of the political game. it is basically the two parties disagreeing and only caring about their parties views,while blocking out the other parties views.
I'd have to agree with everything sydney said. Filibuster is a good tool but people need to learn the facts of it. It is a powerful tool used in congress to delay the vote of a bill and is for the best of the minority party. Sure it can be abused by this party but what people don't realize is that a cloture can always occur with 3/5 vote by senators. If the filibuster returns to its old traditions cloture is going to be harder to accomplish because it is going to require 2/3 vote by the senators. In other words returning to the old tradition will require more people to vote it down thus making it difficult.
It really ticks me off when a politician, a leader, uses a filibuster for saying "NO". Republicans in this time are the party of no and this is just one of their tactics to say it. But that shouldn't matter! This country was based on compromise. I agree on the fact of checks and balances and "Majority rules, but minority rights". But really...130 times of filibustering and 112 clotures to me is just crossing the line. I say abolish the filibuster.
I think having the majority rule, minority right is something that has been taken advantage of in America. The majority rule is not always something everyone agrees on.If we are always going with what the majority wants, and not looking at what the minority wants or needs that is going against democracy.James Madison feared that the majority could trample on the liberty of the minority. That's exactly what is happening now with the Wake County School board. We need to take in consideration of what's best for others not just what is voted on.
>>>When used sparingly and for the proper reasons, the filibuster can be a reasonable tool—a tool of reason.
Lol. )))
>>>The problem is the human trait of greed, power, and selfishness.
True.
..."Filibuster" has certainly become a political tool "used by minority to keep majority from (effectively) governing the country". It's more of a fact that it gets abused frequently.
...Pretty cool how they aren't limited by anything... I mean, I agree with others saying that the filibuster needs to be gotten rid of, but if not, I think that they should at least (!) make it that the one talking for as long as he or she wishes, would not be able to get off-topic. Because when the contrary happens, it's just pure nonsence. It's rubbish to allow someone to talk for as long as he or she wants and especially ABOUT ANYTHING that person wants. o.O ...I'll never understand how that came to be, for I see no reason in permitting a person to talk about unrelated things at such meetings.
I agree with Alex B. The filibuster is abused frequently. The person talking should not be allowed to get off topic of what the debate is about. People now adays take advantage of things that they can say or do. This is not fair for the people on the opposite site (democratic/republican). To me, I believe the filibuster is stupid definitely since they don't even talk about the bill but could talk about a movie they went to go see or something.
Now i think the filibuster is a right to the US that lets the minority have a say so in congress. Even though me being a republican i do have to agree that they have been misusing it mostly becuase they want everything their way. What goverment did to pass the health care bill was a smart move to get it passed but i think it was wrong to take that right from the republicans
I agree with #1DukeBoy I personally like it as well. It keeps the minority alive and doesnt let the majority take over. Just like what James Madison said "Majority rules, but with minority rights".
Should we keep the filibuster because it's an age old tradition? I think not. As the times change, which they obviously have, I believe that we need to move forward as a nation and do what is necessary to pass laws and improve our economic situation. I understand the filibuster protects the "minority rights", but is that really why it's being used today? In my opinion we should eliminate the filibuster so that our leaders can act quickly to help our entire country.
Over 40 years ago, the filibuster was considered to be a respected tool used by politicians. It was used effectively and sparingly, successfully upholding the principle of checks and balances in way that the founding fathers of our country intended. The minority party only used it when they felt it was necessary. So is the filibuster a problem? Currently it is; it is being abused and allowing nothing to be accomplished. However, the filibuster is a tool that that I feel is necessary to preserve balance between parties. All that's needed is for parties to be reasonable when using it and for them to accept the idea that they will have to compromise every once in a while.
I used to agree with the filibuster but now it is just a tool in government that being abused right know. It used to be used to help the minority show their opinions and try to be heard but now people are just using it not to vote. I think that the filibuster is just slowing the law making process and it really isn't helping our country to become better. The filibuster should only be used when necessary by the minority party and since it is not it isn't doing any good in the government. So i think that the filibuster needs to be taken away so that the congress can stop waisting time and try to get things done to help the whole country.
I agree with Colleen, the filibuster is just waisting time. People do strongly oppose some of the bills but there should be a better way to get the minority to be able to be heard in congress. I also agree with Sierra. The nation needs to move forward and make some changes to be able to pass laws and improve our political situations and economical situations as well. They should be trying to help the entire country and act quickly while doing this by eliminating the filibuster.
I think the original idea of the filibuster being a good tool so the minority would be heard was good. You cant always have the majority win because it gives them too much power so having the filibuster allows the minority to have a small portion of that power. But i think its being used improperly, instead of filibustering, grow up and compromise! We cant always get what we want and i think we are forgetting the idea of for "the common good" instead its all about one party and what they want. It used to be a good tool but i think it is now being used as an advantage to the minority. I believe the filibuster is turning into a waste of time when we could be compromising and making changes and moving things along rather than shooting the bull and standing up there for days, weeks, however long a filibuster could last talking about what they are gonna make for dinner or something stupid that doesnt even go along with the bill.
I agree with Stokecity7, we are getting tired of seeing nothing being done in congress. and by us feeling this way were dishing crap on a political party that could be actually making good changes for the common good but because of the filibuster those changes are not being allowed. Now im not saying the filibuster needs to be removed but like stokecity7 said, there are extreme cases that a filibuster is necessary but if it isnt an extreme case and u know you can compromise with the majority than why make it a long drawn out process that isnt necessary and only makes the citizens more upset with the government? I think there are better ways the minority can try to keep a bill from passing or make a bill pass that they agree on and think works with both parties and goes for "the common good" which is supposed to be the main objective of a democratic government.
The filibuster originated from one of the principles of good governance, which is checks and balances.
The objectives of filibuster are to safeguard democracy, prevent abuse of the majority, protect liberty, and ensure that the rights of the minority were not trampled by the majority.
However, over use of the filibuster can result to legislative gridlock and it slows down important measures that is needed by the people.
In my opinion, the good of filibuster outweighs its consequences. It all comes down to the senators. These senators need to act like real statesmen. They have to serve the interest of the people, not their party, and not the interest groups. Filibuster must be preserve to safeguard democracy, and be a tool for checks and balances.
I agree with Fox news about the filibuster being overly used. There should be a limit on how many times it should be used, or there should be another rule created by Senate to override the filibuster if it is overly used. The original intention of filibuster is lost, there is too much politicking and partisanship involved now, to the detriment of the people which Congress should be serving. It creates legislative gridlock, putting the legislative business in a standstill.
I agree with Ryan C the filibuster isn't the problem. It was created over 40 years ago and used sparingly and effectively. The problem seems to be the politicians who are abusing it. The filibuster has a valid purpose to keep the majority from plowing over the minority. The idea of checks and balances is a big part of the foundation of this country. I agree with coming up with an agreement to limit the use of the filibuster as opposed to doing away with it entirely.
Fillibuster is a tool used by the minority party in order to have some control of the decision making proess when it comes to the passing of a bill. The idea of fillibuster is an attempt by our government to try to uphold the core concept of democracy by allowing the minority in congress to have a voice when comes to a passing of a bill. No matter how annoying or hurtful it is to the progression of our civilization. The idea that fillibuster is a means of trying to keep our concept of democracy intact is not a problem but, the idea that it can prevent progress in our democracy is the key issue. Progression is key to the evolution and development of our democracy. When something like fillibuster hinders that progression it destroys the purpose of a democracy. It makes me sick to think that anybody would take advantage of our democracy just for pity reasons.
I agree with its all about U that there is a balance that must be obtained in our society in order for the filibuster to be a succusful and democratic tool. When the balance is abused the progression of our democracy is further hindered. I see the filibuster as a safety tool that was put in place not as a way to abuse the progression of a bill but to allow the minority to have some control over the development of a bill that can alter society. In the end, I completely agree with its all about the U when he refers to limiting this tool. The tool of filibuster is a powerful to the minorities have and in order to balance power it must be limited in some shape or form. The limits on a filibuster is only far to the succesful progress of our democracy and our nation.
im in the middle of the road with the filibuster. i do agree that the republicans have used it excessively against the democrats because 130 times in 2 years is ridiculous. i thinking there should be a limit on the number of filibusters a party can have.
the way things should be voted on needs to be corrected also. on important laws or bills like the health care bill should have a more majority vote like you have to have 70 people for it. maybe the republicans were trying to get a point across to the democrats by filibustering. it's definitely not a good idea to keep trying to pass something if you don't have a bigger majority FOR the bill. but sorry to go on a rant about that.
i think a reason for the republicans to be using the filibuster so much is because i think some politicians have lost sight of the true meaning of why they're in office. it's become somewhat of a popularity contest and just a battle between parties, and that's not what the founding fathers would've wanted.
I don't believe that a fillibuster is just wasting time like some others say it is doing, am I saying that it is the best way to kill a bill, no, I am just saying that we need to think of something better to do with the fillibuster than get rid of it completely. I want to bring back my idea to limit the fillibuster because I do believe that it will make them use the fillibuster more wisely.
I think that RyanC said everythng that's needed to be said about the filibuster. It is tru that the filibuster did work at one time so that the minority party could have some say over a bill that was being discussed. but now they're making it pretty much impossible for any bill to be passed & i dont like the way the minority party's taking advantage of the fact that they got a powerful tool in their hands but are using it unwisely without wanting to come to a compromise.
I agree Snikda..that the filubuster should be limiteda...the filbuster was a good idea when the minority group was not abussing it. Now that the minority group has started to overly abuse this tool they should not be allowed to use it as offten.
I think this is the best idea becouse it would be a bad idea to take away the filubuster because it would give the majority party too much power and control over the senate however not limiting the amount of filubuster gives to much power to the minority it prevents the senate from getting anything done
I would have to agree with Stokecity. Even though filibustering was a good idea invented, they have taken it to the extreme such as reading the dictionary to take up time for the bill. A cloture is a more resonable thing to do when it comes down to dicussing the passing or killing of a bill.
Personally I feel that politics has become less about helping run America and more just about who can have more power. There are places for things such as filibusters in politice=s but it only adds to the want for power and competition. There should be a more practical way for the minority party to have their say as tycho said but also in a way the filibuster is good. It at least prevents the majority party from controling EVERYTHING.
I think the filibuster should be thrown away, and have a new more fair way to stop something instead of officials abusing the filibuster. In this day and age filibuster doesn't help the majority rule, minority right theory. Since we as a country have been more greedy and materialistic, the filibuster is used to give one party the advantage. I think a compromise that would give both parties some say is the best solution to this on going problem.
I agree with Alex B. When used right the filibuster is a reasonable tool. The only reason it is now abused is because humans have become more greedy and power hungry. Although there is no limit to which one can talk, there should be. Times have changed and the no limit may have worked better when people were civil, but now people are too self indulged to care about other and will talk for hours and hour just so an opposing party member can't pass a bill. What I'm trying to say is its best there be some sort of change to this law or removal if we want politics to go anywhere.
Post a Comment