Filibustering

There are two main political parties that dominate politics in the in the United States: The Democratic and Republic Parties. It turns out that these two political parties are opposed to each other on a wide range of issues that affect American public life. Unfortunately, many Americans are unaware of these differences between the two parties and tend to vote their officials into office in an uneducated manner. This often results in the political gridlock that often characterize government business in Washington. The Republican and Democratic Party don 't have much in common but they do have a a lot of things that they oppose from each other. Some issues that both parties have in common support the death penalty. But on issues like abortion Democrats think that should be made legal while Republicans think that it should be illegal. In this essay, I shall examine the ideological positions of either party on a number of these issues in order to define my own allegiance towards either of them.

When first created, the Legislative branch had a lot of power, as a result a system to keep the power in check was created. “no law or resolution can pass without agreement, first of the majority of the people (via the House) and then of the States (represented by the Senate). This complicated Legislative may hinder as well as help” (Hamilton 93). When the Senate comes up with a bill or law it has to be agreed with by the House

Although there have being propositions to change the filibuster rules in order to make them a burden on the filibustering speaker in the long run when the ruling party changes to minority it can be troublesome for them. Few years back Senator Reid from Nevada wanted to make changes to the filibustering tactics this tactic as it applies to executive nominees but, because next time Republicans are in charge there are no guarantees that they would restrict themselves in this

This study showed that the states with the least restrictive gun laws did have the highest rates of violence. On whitehouse.gov, the president has said, “’Our nation has suffered too much at the hands of dangerous people who use guns to commit horrific acts of violence’” ("Now is the time | The White House", n.d.). The President is proposing a 9-step gun control plan that would create a universal background check system, limit gun ownership, ban certain assault weapons, and ensure that mental health patients receive the quality care they need. While the president’s plan sounds like a good strategy, many gun control critics argue that the president’s strategy does little to fix the problem with gun violence, and his policy violates American’s Second Amendment rights.

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set off shockwaves throughout a polarized Washington D.C. Senate Republicans wasted little time stating that any nominee from President Obama would not even get a hearing. Claiming that the people of the United States should have a voice in this process. Or in other words “We are stalling and hoping that we win the White House in November”. While it is only one seat, that one seat could drastically change the course of American history.

35 of 53 Senate Republicans have vowed not to appoint anyone the President picks. This has become a very heated topic of why should the Senate be allowed to stop the President from nominating a new Justice. The Senate wants to allow whoever the new President will be next year to choose who the Justice will be. Some feel that the Senate does not want Obama to choose in fear that it will be a Democratic judge. This would shift the power in the Supreme Court from one that is controlled by the Republicans to one that is controlled by the Democrats. Whoever the President chooses will have an extreme impact for the US Supreme court for several generations to

The filibuster has a major impact on the efficiency of Congress and is something that could be changed in order to improve Congressional efficiency. Currently, a supermajority of sixty votes is required to end a filibuster, but if a lower number such as forty-one votes was required, forty-one votes would also be required to maintain a filibuster. This would mean that Congressional members would have less of a chance to hinder the ability of the legislative body to move forward on important legislation. This would improve public perception of the legislative process and likely increase Congressional approval ratings. In addition to lessening the number of votes required to end a filibuster, Congress could increase productivity by ending the filibuster on the motion to proceed. This would limit debate on a motion to two hours, which would be divided equally between the two parties (Staff, 2014). This would eliminate the practice of an overabundance of prior floor debate altogether and cap the amount of time spent debating the motion to proceed. The filibuster recent years has become a routine parliamentary maneuver rather than the rare occurrence that it once

The tension caused by the political stalemate of the current two-party system in the United States of America undoubtedly trickles down to the day to day living of the average person. It is, without question, one of the most indecisive eras in the political history of the United States. As a representative democracy, the decisions made by those on Capitol Hill should reflect the wills of the American majority, but to say such might imply that the majority wishes ill happenings onto their less numerous counterparts. Such an assertion can be supported by purported discrimination by law makers, economic disagreement, political indecisiveness, intrepid abuse of power by American law enforcement officers, and social injustices represented by the

able to sway the court, complications from a democratic senate and a lame duck presidency

With America now in its very earliest days of being a new nation, any and all actions taken by the government would have lasting impacts on the development of the country and, going forward, would set a precedent for the future. After the Revolution and signing of the Declaration of Independence, America was no longer a sparse group of colonies aggregated along the Eastern coast. America was the start of something entirely new and profound to the modern world: democracy. Because of its hot and fiery origins, the founding fathers of America and intellectuals of the age — whether war veterans or legislators — were very much divided on the vision of America’s future. Thus, the roots of political parties were set in the course of American history forever. From the period 1789 to 1800, political parties developed from an insurmountable difference in opinion in leading a nation. These stark differences and

The consequences could be substantial, but with every party participating even President Obama with making his nominees public, the feud between the parties will continue to boil down to Congress's advice and consent. (Hulse, 2016) The nominees should have a public viewing, for the voters should have a say in their next Supreme Court Justice, yet with the continuing slander from both presidential campaigning parties the public eye might not get the full news on Obama pick Merrick Garland. With the large input from politicians have also changed the rules where the nominees are picked and confirmed. The consequences could be substantial, but with every party participating even President Obama with making his nominees public, the feud between the parties will continue to boil down to Congress's advice and

There are many individuals from Generations Y and Z who have resulted to shutting themselves off from current events and others who have even abstained from studying the subject due to their disdain of politics. This is quite saddening considering the rich history America has behind the foundation of the government. Among many topics in political science that are worthy of analysis, I have chosen the three areas of discussion that every American should have knowledge about regardless of their opinion on government’s effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to give a brief overview on the Constitution’s path to ratification, various forms of federalism America has adopted, and the notorious concept of political parties. In addition, I will

Throughout the history of these great United States of America, the country has always possessed something truly unique: the fundamental principle of being for and by the people. This dynamic has lasted throughout the 241 year history of the United States being an independent nation. Whether it was the American Revolution led by George Washington, the Louisiana Purchase of Thomas Jefferson, the freeing of the slaves by Abraham Lincoln, or even through the grimmer times of the Great Depression, we have always remained strong due to great leadership (“The history of the United States,” 2016). However, as time has passed, both major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, have become increasingly polarized in their conquest for power. This remains true to this day, as the United States is in the midst of its current presidential election cycle, with the ultimate goal of a strong 45th President of the United States of America.

Mass shootings have become a disturbing movement that only seems to be rising. The Orlando tragedy caused opened the conversation towards guns and public safety. Americans no longer feel safe. The theoretical statement in Why Obama Can’t do anything about guns by Jamelle Bouie is gun control isn’t the President Barack Obama’s failure; it is the American people not speaking up. The theory used as a premise in this argument is not accepted because the understanding of gun policy is still a myth (Bouie, 2016). Additionally, the alternative theory is if gun policies were to remain stagnant, the danger would escalate over time. The doubtful prediction derived from this theoretical statement would be republicans supporting the liberal views about gun control. Americans and the U.S. government must stand together to fight for the protection of the society.

Sponsor of the bill Senator Charles Schumer, along with fellow Democrats took this time to speak in favor of the bill, and their discontent with the Court's ruling in Citizens United. Meanwhile Senator Roberts (R-KS) claimed that this bill was an infringement on the first amendment, and that the ruling in Citizens united was just a way of protecting citizens first amendment right. Unlike in the House, there was no limit to this debate by a rules committee and instead required what is known as cloture to end the debate. A cloture petition is the only way to end debate in the Senate, and it requires at minimum two-thirds support or 60 signatures from Senators to be considered valid(Sinclair 79). This two-thirds requirement is considered a super majority and has proven to be quite difficult to obtain. A cloture petition is the counter to the filibuster, a tool given to members of the minority party to give them strength within the congressional body. Through a filibuster a member of the minority may extend debate to the point that a bill never has the chance to be voted on, ultimately killing the it (Sinclair 80). The necessity of a supermajority in order to take away this power of the minority once again attest the protection of the minority party within the Senate. After some debate a cloture motion was filed in hopes to end debate on the bill. That said, while Democrats were a majority in the Senate they were not a supermajority, meaning