Filibuster Conclusion

Federalist 51writen by James Madison explains the need for checks and balance built into our government. There are other things to read on this subject too. But this is pretty good. Recently we have been hearing about the how in the Senate their members are being pressured to resist at all costs the confirmation of Neil McGill Gorsuch to the Supreme Court by their left leaning constituency. Originally the Senators were not elected by popular vote as they are today. Only the House member were. The idea was that the Senate not elected by popular vote and by serving 6 years would be a more deliberative body not driven by the same pressures of the members of the House, who only serve 2 years and were elected by popular vote. The members of the

The Constitution provided many ways to prevent tyranny such as popular sovereignty, federalism, etc., but this paper focuses on the two most important; checks and balances and separation of powers. Separation of Powers was a brilliant idea, because it gave each branch of the government certain powers that the other branches didn’t have (Document D), and the other branches couldn’t take that power away from each other.

Today, Supreme Court Nominee’s, Neil Gorsuch, Confirmation hearing came near conclusion on a very confrontational note with the Senate’s Principal Democrat threatening to filibuster. This would complicate the way the senate “conducts its business”. The Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch only have a 52-majority instead of the 60-majority that is necessary. However, they say he will be confirmed anyway, even if it means removing the filibuster option and allowing nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s decision to filibuster was not unexpected but it will increase tension in the senate. “If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said. Although the democrats do not have the votes to block this motion, his filibuster will publicize the resistance in the Congress.

Filibuster is defined as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in legislation. Filibusters are a waste of legislation time, which could be put toward more important bills that could and need to be passed.

The filibuster continues to be an area of controversy in the United States Senate. Critics of the rule claim that it has corrupted and even broken the institution, while proponents claim that the rule is a savior for the minority against unpopular laws instituted by the majority. Throughout history, the filibuster has shown its potentially dangerous side as well as its positive benefits. After any major party shift in the Senate, it seems that there is always talk of filibuster reform by the new majority. Although reform debates persist, rules and procedures regarding the filibuster have yet to be significantly changed since 1975, when the cloture rule was last amended. The debate has been revived

On the other hand, there are a lot of cons to filibusters too. It is true that having the power to filibuster helps ensure the voices of the minority but it can also mean that having the power to filibuster ensures the tyranny of the minority. Because the size of the senate is not based on the size of the population of each state, every state gets two senators. It is now possible according to Jean Edward Smith, “for the senators representing the 34 million people who live in the 21 least populous states — a little more than 11 percent of the nation’s population — to nullify the wishes of the representatives of the remaining 88 percent of Americans. (Smith, 2009). This is completely the opposite of what the framers wanted, they wanted the government to represent the people not a small portion of the people. This is very dangerous because now if ever the more populous states wants to pass a bill on an issue regarding their states population, the more sparse states

Congressional gridlock is not a modern invention in the world of politics. Alexander Hamilton use to complain about the deadlock “flaw” in the design of Congress. In politics, “Congressional gridlock” is a situation in Congress where there are complications in passing laws for the people. Gridlock could be prevented if we had a democracy for the majority and unified. While many view this as frustrating, gridlocks are starting to become a political norm. This leads to a divided government. Congressional gridlock in the states has become an everyday topic that nobody really understands what to do. The creation of gridlock is seen every day. The failure that Congress comes with when trying to agree upon the nation’s budget, or have the right

In the event a bill is strongly favored by the committee the Congress leaders have a floor debate. “Major bills must first go to the Rules Committee, which decides where bills will appear on the legislation calendar and the terms under which bills will be debated by the House” (Greenberg, 351). Specific rules include; the nature of the amendments, how much time can be spent debating, and a number if necessary. The committee has the power to have a “closed ruling” which allows for a yes or no vote. In a floor debate, the Senate determines the final form of the bill also, “The threat of a hold or a filibuster means that the minority in Senate plays an important role in determining the final step of legislation” (Greenberg, 352). After this step, the members of the chamber either vote once the bill has been reported or after the amendments have been added. Once

Shields of the filibuster alert against changing the framework, saying that the delay is a critical security of minority-gathering rights. They say the filibuster backtracks to the authors' desire to make a national government with deliberately built balanced governance and that increasing the procedure debilitates the very condition of American majority rules system. A few Republicans call the thought of demolishing the delay a Democratic power grab.

Jefferson states that a “government is best which governs least,” but what affect does government inaction have of on our society, and what are the forces that promote this inaction? The competition for power between separated institutions is a driving force in this inaction. When the legislative and executive branches of our government engage in a power struggle, policies that could be potentially beneficial suffer at the hands of legislative gridlock. The polarization of the democrat and republican parties also has an impact on the difficulties faced by Congress. A polarized Congress leads to difficulties in legislating because no one is willing to compromise. The competition of power and polarization between

The tactic, filibuster has a long history dating back to the 1800’s; it is used to delay bills being passed. It has been a way to win votes for the people and gives senates time to attain the votes they need or get they’re points across (US Site). Many don’t find this move very appealing because it is used mostly by the minority party to give some-kind of power over the majority. In fact, some senates argue that it should be abolished, there have been actions placed to end debates such as the cloture and the nuclear option. However, it is a lengthy process that does not guarantee an end to a filibuster.

For Centuries in the United States, Congressional gridlock has been one of the main difficulties of prosperity and progress. The government of the United States has had the opportunity to make the life of its citizens better but due to the epidemic of gridlock a lot of the issues we face are unresolved or ignored. Going forward I will give causes, solutions and some examples of the effect that it has had on the democracy of the United States as well as examples of congressional gridlock.

The bill then went to the senate where there was much debate and procrastination. Many senators opposed to the bill tried to use the “filibuster” technique, which basically is an extended talk for the purpose of killing a bill or getting drastic modifications. In fact, it was the longest debate in Senate history lasting 534 hours in total. The final vote in the Senate was 76 to 18 to pass their version of the bill since they made minor amendments to it (Bureau of National Affairs 18-21). A quote from Senator John Lesinski, democrat, showed why some were opposed to the bill, “There are still many private rights in America that under our Constitution are beyond the power of government to regulate and one of these is the right to pick and chose one’s associates, one’s friends and one’s customers in a private business” (Calls Bill Unconstitutional 33). The final vote in the House over the amendments the senate made was 289 to 126. This set the way for the bill to be signed by the President to become a law.

“They say women talk too much. If you have worked in Congress you know that the filibuster was invented by men” - Clare Boothe Luce. A filibuster is a long speech used to delay a bill or a piece of legislation. It is a loophole within the Senate rules that has proven useful in a Congressional debate. Filibusters grants a significant power created by taking a stand against a flawed rule which gave the minority group power over a more dominant group. Consequently, the majority mitigated any abuse of the filibuster by limiting it.

One day, in Arizona, the citizens wanted a law to change. They wanted to be able to wear suspenders so they asked to change a law. None of them wanted a rider because they were scared that it would change the entire bill. Because of that, they prayed that the bill will become a law without any riders. In the Congress, the incumbent did not like the law. Since a lot of people from the Congress looks up at the incumbent, they changed their minds and did not accept the law. The bill then ends up as a pigeon hole. The incumbent then states: