Proof that Bush lied about Iraq - secret memo

[Lorenzo]

In the Senate, where representation is state by state and there's more protection for regional interests, the filibuster makes it impossible for a simple majority to impose anything terribly onerous to the minority, which forces compromise and bipartisanship.

If that were the case, the filibuster would fit in nicely in cities where representatives are elected by wards, but in the US Senate (below) it provides a different line of reasoning, saying that the growing size of the House was the cause of its retirement, but the rule was left in the smaller Senate.

• Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.
  
  In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

Without the filibuster, the whole structure of the legislative branch of government is changed in a way that's never been tried in the entire history of the country.

I don't think it was in the initial legislative rules, but came more into being in the early to mid 1800's. And of course it can be ended by a 2/3 vote.

The term comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom.

[Jerry Freeman]

In the House, too, it would have prevented a simple majority from ramming onerous legislation through the objections of a large minority. With the tactic only available in the Senate now, it is even more important as protection against a "tyranny of the majority."

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Wormdiet]

I stand, as ever I did, in favor of states' rights, and opposed to an oligarchy of the coastal urban centers.

Umm. . . if an "urban oligarchy" has more people. . . isn't that a democracy
?


I for one resent being governed by an oligarchy of inland rural folks, especially since there are fewer of them.

[Walden]

Umm. . . if an "urban oligarchy" has more people. . . isn't that a democracy
?


I for one resent being governed by an oligarchy of inland rural folks, especially since there are fewer of them.

Heh heh heh... these are among the issues that led to the compromise at the Constitutional Convention.

[anniemcu]

I'm not crazy about the Electoral College system, but I'm not bothered very much by it. If you like the Electoral College system, that's OK with me. It works well enough.

I agree, it seems to work ok I guess. Pity they didn't allow it to work in the last two elections.

[Lorenzo]

It would be interesting to see if the filibuster has ever been used when burdonsome and oppressive legislation was being proposed. The longest filibuster is still held by Strom Thurmond against Civil Rights, of all things. And, it should be noted that the Dems can still filibuster the proposal the change the rules (I think). hmmm. I wonder if they can. Why would the Dems be so frightened if they couldn't? The filibuster is despised by the party in power and loved by the party that isn't. In the 1970s, when Robert Byrd was majority leader, he changed the filibuster rule several times, using a parliamentary maneuver very similar to Republicans' tactics today.

• Until 1917, a single senator could sustain a filibuster if his lungs and bladder held out. But that changed after 11 senators opposed to U.S. participation in World War I filibustered a bill permitting the arming of merchant ships. President Woodrow Wilson denounced them as "a little group of willful men," and the public outcry was so great that the Senate voted to allow debate to be ended by a two-thirds majority vote. In 1975, after a series of filibusters on civil rights bills, liberal Republicans and Democrats got that threshold dropped to a three-fifths majority, or 60 votes. -more

1968 - Repubs filibuster a supreme court nominee:

• That four-day talkathon in September 1968 has largely been forgotten. But some Senate Democrats want to bring it back to mind to counter a key Republican attack against their stalling tactics that have blocked confirmation votes for several of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees. The GOP claim, asserted in speeches, articles and interviews, is that filibusters against judicial nominees are unprecedented.
  
  Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice." -source

We know that the filibuster was not used to block onerous legislation. From the mid-19th century through the 1960s, the filibuster was Southerners' tool of choice for blocking civil rights legislation.

[s1m0n]

I stand, as ever I did, in favor of states' rights, and opposed to an oligarchy of the coastal urban centers.

Cities? States?

I'm for "one man, one vote," myself.

I don't think either cities or states should be voting.

[Jerry Freeman]

Lorenzo,

Your argument is specious.

The threat of a filibuster forces compromise and bipartisanship. Your citing of a few instances where a filibuster was actually used is misleading because it suggests that those are the only instances where the filibuster rule influenced legislation. I'm sure there are many hundreds of instances where legislation was written a certain way because it was understood that a large minority would not accept a version with provisions a simple majority would have voted for, but which would have been detrimental to a large constituancy. Even when the word filibuster never enters the debate, the simple fact that the tactic is available helps keep the legislation from becoming too one sided.

Now please go sit in the corner with Walden.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[dwinterfield]

It would be interesting to see if the filibuster has ever been used when burdonsome and oppressive legislation was being proposed. The longest filibuster is still held by Strom Thurmond against Civil Rights, of all things. And, it should be noted that the Dems can still filibuster the proposal the change the rules (I think). hmmm. I wonder if they can. Why would the Dems be so frightened if they couldn't?

I may not have this exactly right, but I think the plan is something like this. Chaney will be presiding over the Senate. A Republican Senator will make a point of order or similar parliamentary request asking the Chair to rule on whether a 3/5 vote to end debate on judicial nominees is allowed by the Constitution. The Chair (Chaney) will rule that it is not allowed. A Democrat will challenge the ruling of the chair, calling for a vote. Senate rules do not and I don't think ever have allowed a filibuster on a ruling by the chair. A simple majority will sustain the chair's ruling. I imagine the Democrats can go to the Supreme Court and they may very well succeed and the filibuster will be restored for judicial nominations. By then these nominees will be confirmed and sworn in and it's hard to imagine the Supreme Court reversing that.

Just as a footnote, 34 of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees were denied an up or down vote in the Senate by careful manipulation on the rules by Republicans. None of this has anything to do with principle. It's all about wielding raw political power. To this point in our history, both parties have recognized the value to the country of give and take in running the country. Now the republicans want to win every single issue and have everything exactly their way. It's sort of a scorched earth approach. They may get their way in the short run, but the price we'll all pay will be high.

[anniemcu]

... To this point in our history, both parties have recognized the value to the country of give and take in running the country. Now the republicans want to win every single issue and have everything exactly their way. It's sort of a scorched earth approach. They may get their way in the short run, but the price we'll all pay will be high.

You got that right. The price we will ALL pay will be high.

[Lorenzo]

Good post, dwinterfield. I'm not sure how it will work. Not sure they do either. As to the Supreme Court, I doubt they'd take on the issue because of the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Like your scenario, here's how http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovern ... buster.htm decribes how it might work:

• The "nuclear option" which Republican leaders are threatening is actually a series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules: (cite)
  1. The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
  2. At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
  3. Majority Leader Frist raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
  4. Vice President Cheney -- acting as presiding officer -- sustains the point of order.
  5. A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
  6. A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
  7. This vote - to table the appeal - is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
  8. With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the nominee; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.

The filibuster is embodied in the Senate's own formal rules--Rule XXII--which guarantees unlimited discussion absent cloture (ending debate). Nowdays, a member doesn't have to keep talking till he/she drops, a minority party can indefinitely put off a vote on a bill or nomination by simply indicating to Senate leaders that this indefinite delay is desired.

The U.S. Constitution is designed to create decision making by majority rule. The Articles of Confederation required super majorities for many decisions. So, the Framers remedied this by giving congress a majority rule, ie, for most legislation. There are 7 situations in congress which require something more than a simple majority. They include overriding presidential vetoes, ratifying treaties, approving constitutional amendments, and expelling a member, etc. The filibuster potentially turns all legislation into a 2/3 majority needed for passage--or now 3/5. If anything greater than a simple majority is desired, such as presidential appointments, it seems like it would be best to include it in with the other 7 exceptions to the rule. It's just as a matter of process, you know.

BTW, the filibuster was first introduced by Senator John C. Calhoun in 1841 to defend slavery. Since then, the filibuster has been used 16 times in the 1800s, 66 in the first half of the early 1900s, and 195 times between 1970 and 1994. Its popularity and usefulness seems to be growing. It will be interesting to see how the Repubs try to alter the rules. It must be possible or the Dems wouldn't be reacting like they are.

[jGilder]

BTW, the filibuster was first introduced by Senator John C. Calhoun in 1841 to defend slavery.

It's always interesting when history on these things seems to smack you in the face.

As far as the filibuster and the Republicans go, they’re position is disingenuous on account of how they utilized it so much during the last Democratic dominated Congress. If they really thought it needed to be abolished why didn't they bring it up then -- and why did they use it so much? They would only have ground to stand on if they hadn't themselves exploited it the way they did. It does make you wonder what they have up their sleeves if they foresee a time when it won't be necessary.

[Walden]

BTW, the filibuster was first introduced by Senator John C. Calhoun in 1841 to defend slavery.

It's always interesting when history on these things seems to smack you in the face.

As far as the filibuster and the Republicans go, they’re position is disingenuous on account of how they utilized it so much during the last Democratic dominated Congress.

For that matter, an opposition to slavery was a major issue heavily used by the early Republicans.

It seems absurdist that the Republicans should attempt to change the rules mid-game like this. Then again, when it comes to politics, when isn't mid-game, so to speak?

[jGilder]

For that matter, an opposition to slavery was a major issue heavily used by the early Republicans.

My great grand uncle, William Watson Gilder, author, publisher and poet, was well known in New York's literary and political circles around the end of the 19th century. He was very liberal according to what I've read about him, and I'm certain he and the Republicans of his time are turning in their graves over what's become of their party.

[Walden]

Ah... you must be a Republican... naturally.

I'd like to elaborate a little on my political position. I am a member of the Democratic Party, and have been from the time I first registered to vote, as a teenager. One reason I am a Democrat is that I come from a family with a long tradition in that party. Another is that I do not feel like, in the greater scheme of things, that my idealogy is as close to that of the Republican Party as to the Democratic. And, finally, I believe there is room for me at the Democratic table.

• I am conservative on moral issues. In recent times this would put me at odds with Democratic trends, in some respects. However, in states such as Oklahoma, my position would not have historically been uncommon of Democrats.

• On Federal matters, I believe in states' rights. This would also seem to ally me with the conservative camp, or some wings thereof in the United States, perhaps paleoconservatism.

• I am not in favor of reducing welfare spending.

• I am strongly opposed to racist policies.

• I believe that language and healthy cultural traditions of the various peoples within our borders should be encouraged and fostered, be they Acadian, Iberian Jewish, Japanese, Seminole, Swahili, English, or whatever.

• I do not believe in social classes. I come from a poor family. We made do with help from commodity programs. Social barriers exist, but I believe that they ought not.

• I believe in national or tribal sovereignty among American Indian, Native Alaskan, and Hawaiian native peoples. When I was growing up (and still yet), much of my family lived on lands that were alotted to my great grandparents when the United States annexed Indian Territory to the state of Oklahoma. This was done in order to privatize tribal lands, and further enable settlement by the dominant society. The Five Civilized Tribes are, today, widely assimilated.

• I am opposed to increased policing, and invasion of privacy by government and nongovernment alike. Much of what is being done today should require issuance of warrants from the judicial.

• I am apalled at seeming Republican attempts to take over certain reigious groups.