GOP To Filibuster Filibuster Reform

[bfdd]

That *is* how the government was originally designed, to have more power at the state level. Prior to the Civil War, U.S. Senators were placed in power by the state legislatures not by popular vote, and back then it took 67 votes to end debate! Because of who puts them in power, U.S. Senators voted for what the state legislature wanted lest he be replaced at the end of his term.

I think U.S. Senators went to popular vote as a punishment of some kind against the southern states. And ever since, federal powers have been constantly expanding, while state powers constantly shrinking.

Today, what is the check on federal powers?

This is why I want to start a movement to get rid of the 17th Amendment

 

[theeedude]

Still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution is a 60 vote requirement. Constitution supersedes any Senate rule, I hope we can at least agree on that.

 

[nageov3t]

Still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution is a 60 vote requirement. Constitution supersedes any Senate rule, I hope we can at least agree on that.

doesn't the constitution say that the senate can make its own rules to govern its body?

edit:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings


section 5

 

[Craig234]

Good! Simple majority is and has always been bullshit. If you want to change peoples lives it should have super majority... If there was one mistake our founders made was not 2/3rdsing any spending bill.

Yes, that's why the federal government has had out of control spending aganst the people's wishes with skyrocketing deficits every sine Washington.

Oh, wait, the skyrocketing debt started with *Reagan*, as Republicans discovered the formula of starve the beast, big spending for political gain, let the next generation deal with it deficits, talk 'low spending'.

The rest of the time the document has beenthe same hasn't had the same issue, so it's not an issue with the 50% spending rule, which if raised would cause nothing to get done.

 

[Patranus]

which if raised would cause nothing to get done.

Sounds like a plan. We don't need people in Washington D.C. legislating just to be legislating and justifying their existence.

 

[soccerballtux]

You are right, literally nothing would be passed (on a federal level).

States would be able to increase their tax base and pay for programs they need, beg for federal monies as a political favor for some vote in congress.

If a state saw the need to enact some legislation their legislators would and would be held accountable by the state.

Sounds like a win/win except for those in DC.

1/2 the shit they do isn't in the constitution and would have required a constitutional amendment prior to FDR. Why do you think the federal government couldn't just pass a law using interstate commerce as a justification to outlaw alcohol?

This is a very good point.

 

[Craig234]

Sounds like a plan. We don't need people in Washington D.C. legislating just to be legislating and justifying their existence.

Parroting ideoloy is always useful.

 

[kage69]

Guess the Dems forgot what they told the Pugs a few years ago when the shoe was on the other foot...
I view the filibuster as a necessary evil and think the Dems are barking up the wrong tree, just as the GOP was when they were threatening to do this.

 

[Sinsear]

Parroting ideoloy is always useful.

Oh the irony.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Why is it that a filibuster need not be played out? I say go for it - let the 41 minority senators 'debate' to their hearts content, read from phone books, the whole nine yards. It should make great election time footage for democratic candidates' advertising.

 

[Genx87]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...m-headed-for-senate-floor-faces-uphill-battle

The funniest part is that this would take a filibuster proof majority to pass.
Don't you just love it when a party throws a temper tantrum when they lose?

lmao the usual suspects will come out of the woodwork and support such action when they were against it when Republicans thought about it.

The funny thing is when they do this they are so shortsighted they forget it is possible Republicans regain both houses and then use the new rules to squash the Democrats.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yes, that's why the federal government has had out of control spending aganst the people's wishes with skyrocketing deficits every sine Washington.

Oh, wait, the skyrocketing debt started with *Reagan*, as Republicans discovered the formula of starve the beast, big spending for political gain, let the next generation deal with it deficits, talk 'low spending'.

The rest of the time the document has beenthe same hasn't had the same issue, so it's not an issue with the 50% spending rule, which if raised would cause nothing to get done.

Craig, congress controls the budget, not the President, okay?

 

[Craig234]

Craig, congress controls the budget, not the President, okay?

No, not ok. You still don't know how it works? The President greatly influences the budget. His party tends to support his budge for the most part.

Similar congresses under the last 4 years of Clinton and the first four years of Bush. Very, very different budgets the moment Bush wasin office. Hm, what changed?

 

[Craig234]

Guess the Dems forgot what they told the Pugs a few years ago when the shoe was on the other foot...
I view the filibuster as a necessary evil and think the Dems are barking up the wrong tree, just as the GOP was when they were threatening to do this.

You might have a point, but let's be clear the circumstances are very clear. The Republicans were saying, "oh you think you'll only approve 97 of our radical judges but the the most terribele? We'll take your filibuster!" The Republicans on the other hand are havig their tiny number of 40 after loising the election claim veto power of everything setting all-time records.

 

[PJABBER]

You might have a point, but let's be clear the circumstances are very clear. The Republicans were saying, "oh you think you'll only approve 97 of our radical judges but the the most terribele? We'll take your filibuster!" The Republicans on the other hand are havig their tiny number of 40 after loising the election claim veto power of everything setting all-time records.

I think they are hoping for change.

 

[ProfJohn]

No, not ok. You still don't know how it works? The President greatly influences the budget. His party tends to support his budge for the most part.

Similar congresses under the last 4 years of Clinton and the first four years of Bush. Very, very different budgets the moment Bush wasin office. Hm, what changed?

Ummmm Reagan never had a congress controlled by his party. Instead he had to work with the Democrats to pass budgets.

So in reality the budget deficits of the 80s and early 90s were the result of Republicans Presidents working with a Democratic congress.

 

[Zebo]

Yes, that's why the federal government has had out of control spending aganst the people's wishes with skyrocketing deficits every sine Washington.

Oh, wait, the skyrocketing debt started with *Reagan*, as Republicans discovered the formula of starve the beast, big spending for political gain, let the next generation deal with it deficits, talk 'low spending'.

The rest of the time the document has beenthe same hasn't had the same issue, so it's not an issue with the 50% spending rule, which if raised would cause nothing to get done.

Whoops - Not having a balanced budget amendment was other mistake. And yes Craig, things would still get done - just not .gov comprising 30% of GDP like today.

 

[mav451]

Thread title blew my mind.

 

[Double Trouble]

I thought it was a horribly stupid short-sighted idea when the idiot repubs wanted to do it, and it's the same horribly stupid short-sighted idea now. Don't these guys ever ever learn: when you monkey around with the rules to benefit you when you're in power, it inevitably comes back to bite you in the ass when the other guy is in power and uses the advantages you created. Prime example: Massachusetts. If the dems had not monkeyed around with the rules when Romney was there, Brown would not be a senator now.

 

[Lemon law]

Excuse me, doesn't anyone on this forum have memories longer than a year or two. Back in 2005 or 2006, then Senate GOP majority Frisk tried the same stunt at ending the filibuster which is simply a senate rule. At the time, a so called bipartisan gang of 14 senators stopped that Frisk power play and the filibuster has stayed in the rules of the Senate.

But as soon as the GOP lost their Senate majority in the election of 11/2006, the GOP has used it to set world records for the over use of the filibuster.

In any final analysis, the filibuster was intended to prevent the tyranny of a small majority, and it never was intended to create the tyranny of the small minority which is the result today.

And we also need not per say have to end the filibuster when we can do two other things. (1) Redefine the size--should it be a 2 to 1 requiring 67 votes, the present 3/5'th requiring 60 votes, or maybe just 55 or 56 votes. (2) Or we can make it the responsibility or the minority Senate leader to limit the number of filibusters they can use in any given Senate 2 year term, exceed that number and all subsequent votes in that 2 year Senate term simply takes a raw majority. Which could also limit the present abuse and over use of the filibuster.

 

[Lemon law]

Good! Simple majority is and has always been bullshit. If you want to change peoples lives it should have super majority... If there was one mistake our founders made was not 2/3rdsing any spending bill.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have one suggestion for Zebo before he spouts that simplistic credo. Just read the book titled "Poland" by James Mitchner. Its a semi historical novel about Poland that had such rules and the end results and the raping of that nation because Poland ended up having no government at all as a result.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Craig, congress controls the budget, not the President, okay?

No, not ok. You still don't know how it works? The President greatly influences the budget. His party tends to support his budge for the most part.

Similar congresses under the last 4 years of Clinton and the first four years of Bush. Very, very different budgets the moment Bush wasin office. Hm, what changed?

Each President has his priorities that they want.

Congress then determines what they are willing to provide.

It is then up to the President to accept or reject the package.
With the line Item veto out; it becomes an all or nothing unless they can control funding distribution by fiat.

 

[CrackRabbit]

lmao the usual suspects will come out of the woodwork and support such action when they were against it when Republicans thought about it.

The funny thing is when they do this they are so shortsighted they forget it is possible Republicans regain both houses and then use the new rules to squash the Democrats.

This is my whole point, without a big red button that each side can threaten to push REAL debate on a bill could happen and maybe, just maybe, it could pass or fail on its own merits.
All that happens now is that the minority side threatens to press the button and the "debate" becomes about how to scratch enough people's backs to get them to override the threat of a button push. This is how some crap like the "Nebraska Compromise" get added to bills.

 

[Double Trouble]

Excuse me, doesn't anyone on this forum have memories longer than a year or two. Back in 2005 or 2006, then Senate GOP majority Frisk tried the same stunt at ending the filibuster which is simply a senate rule. At the time, a so called bipartisan gang of 14 senators stopped that Frisk power play and the filibuster has stayed in the rules of the Senate.

But as soon as the GOP lost their Senate majority in the election of 11/2006, the GOP has used it to set world records for the over use of the filibuster.

In any final analysis, the filibuster was intended to prevent the tyranny of a small majority, and it never was intended to create the tyranny of the small minority which is the result today.

And we also need not per say have to end the filibuster when we can do two other things. (1) Redefine the size--should it be a 2 to 1 requiring 67 votes, the present 3/5'th requiring 60 votes, or maybe just 55 or 56 votes. (2) Or we can make it the responsibility or the minority Senate leader to limit the number of filibusters they can use in any given Senate 2 year term, exceed that number and all subsequent votes in that 2 year Senate term simply takes a raw majority. Which could also limit the present abuse and over use of the filibuster.

Funny how you simply define it as "abuse" when it's the other guys doing it. I don't think it's been abused at all, I think it's working exactly as it should, though I do think they need to put it back so that senators actually have to physically be there and continue the debate, not just say you intend to filibuster.

As I stated before, monkeying with the rules so you have more power when you have the majority seems like a wonderful idea, until a couple of years later things turn around and then people are bitching and whining about what the other party is doing. Leave the damn rule alone, it's been working fine for generations, and there's no compelling argument as to why it needs changed now. The parties just need to learn to work with each other instead of each one hardheadedly trying to ram through an extreme agenda that the "other side" can not vote for.

The republicans were whining about the dems "abusing" the filibuster before, and they threatened to use the nuclear option to stop it. Now the dems whine about the republicans "abusing" it. It's perfectly within the rules, it's worked fine forever, both sides do it, keep it as is.

 

[Lemon law]

I happen to disagree with Double Trouble, the filibuster may be a decent tactic to use rarely, but when its used all the time, its not such a good idea because it creates a tyranny of the minority and total grid lock where nothing can be done. The filibuster may have worked fine in the past but its current and total overuse threatens its purpose.

As it is, what the democrats lack is lock step party unity, so a decent balance of power is maintained as it is.