My links support my belief that the filibuster was adopted as part of the parliamentary procedures we inherited from the British. My assertion was that our government was "designed" to "grind to a halt" when it becomes dysfunctional. Still I'm wondering why you allegedly bothered to read so much when you don't care.
It's telling how much you're trying to dance here. You're reduced to linking to articles about Rome because you have no evidence for the filibuster being part of the US government.
If you'd like to have yourself debate your own puppet then be my guest.
Baffling non-sequitur, although that's kind of funny in that it appears you didn't understand the other thread either.
We shouldn't care what the founders thought for how we run our government today.
When you say something was designed with a specific feature, we should obviously care what the designers thought when they were making it to determine if that is true.
This is not complicated.
Where have I seen this sort of language before?
Oh! That's right:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Lol. Saying that rights not mentioned are not denied is a vastly different statement than things not mentioned are affirmatively endorsed. By your logic the 9th amendment grants an affirmative right to furry porn and literally everything else on the planet.
This has gone beyond an ignorance of civics and the constitution and moved into some basic logical thinking issues. I'm open to assist with those as well.
I'm sure you're about to attempt to school me on how there's a difference between citizens and the rights that are never invoked on their behalf and the senate rules which are apparently unnecessarily arbitrary in that they totes didn't want the filibuster which was foisted on them by the time traveling Koch brothers. I'm so certain that your extensive reading of the US constitution you managed to make it through the very first article to at least the second clause of the 5th section where it clearly reads:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
So again, I'm wondering where the evidence is that the filibuster was shoehorned in there like the pesky comma in the 2nd amendment when the Constitution specifically describes the determination of the parliamentary procedures (including quorum and the filibuster).
You are supporting my argument. There is no mention of the filibuster anywhere. There are explicitly listed supermajority requirements for other things listed. The idea that they had other supermajorities in mind but totes didn't feel like listing them is a pretty pathetic argument. Maybe you think George Soros snuck in and erased that part?
The senate adopted rules from the British parliament, if the filibuster was so offensive to them certainly you could find evidence that they didn't want it. Perhaps you should start with debates about cloture and why they had debates about cloture instead of debates about getting rid of "talking bills to death" which has history going back to the Roman republic.
Ah yes, you've returned to your central argument that everything they didn't explicitly ban is somehow part of their design. As mentioned before, that's an exceptionally dumb argument.
Incredible moving goalposts. Still no mention of how this unfortunate oversight managed to survive for 2000 years of world governance or more than 200 years of US governance without being removed, or why the founders didn't specifically exclude it when granting the Congress the authority to determine their rules. This is very odd considering that they had the foresight to specifically enumerate the powers of congress (but seriously, the only important ones are interstate commerce and the welfare clause because they can be used to justify anything.)
Have you found Ms. Cox's speechwriting credentials yet? Take all the time you need.
It's funny that you believe asking for literally any evidence to support your position is 'moving the goalposts'. Then again, it's become abundantly clear that you can't, otherwise you wouldn't be flailing like this.
I'll ask one more time and then just assume that you are incapable of answering this extremely simple question:
If the constitution was deliberately designed to include the filibuster as a part of senate procedure, please provide a single, solitary quote from any of the individuals involved in designing our government that says that.
Just one.
As an alternative you could say "ok, I didn't know what I was talking about". Just a thought.
Facebook
Twitter