Essay On Filibuster

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.

“The filibuster has been used 1,300 times since 1917” and in the last “12 years [from 2010 to 1998]... the filibuster was used nearly 600 times!” This causes a massive slowdown in Congress making bills inefficient to pass. Each of these stands takes hours and hours so for using it that much is a waste of time. “There is no certain number of days that a bill has to become law, but it must be voted on in the same congressional session, or same year, that it is introduced. If it is not voted on during the session, it can be reintroduced the following year, when it must start its journey over again” and the “most popular stage for a bill to die [is] Committee of the chamber bill is introduced in”. These all point to the fact that people are abusing the right of using a filibuster to make rules they don’t like by delaying them. This realization is the start of the nuclear option, a bill that could make filibusters eliminated or almost completely limited from

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.

would happen if every citizen was eligible to influence lawmakers to the extent that interest

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

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.

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.

During the Revolutionary War, Congress formed our first written Constitution as a way to help strengthen our nation and provide a way for our country to be run. The Articles of Confederation had a few basic strengths in place. However, there were also some weaknesses in it as well. The Articles of Confederation had a few basic strengths. It was instrumental in uniting the original thirteen colonies under one cause.

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

The blocking of legislation is nothing new to the Republican party. According to the article Why Washington’s Tied Up in Knots, Republicans have been blocking legislation since the late nineteen sixties, where they blocked a little less than ten percent of major legislation using the filibuster tactic. The filibuster was a rare thing to behold, on average only occurring once every ten years, until during Bill Clinton's term in which nearly fifty eight filibusters had been enacted by the Republican party. The number of filibusters has nearly doubled in just the past year alone, with a whopping one thirty eight filibusters (United States Senate), all instigated by the Republican party to block as many of President Barack Obama's initiatives as possible, including the delay and possible destruction of the all important health care bill.

In 1789, the Senate and House of Representatives ordered a rule where only a majority vote was needed to conclude a debate. Although the House of Representatives kept that rule, the Senate got rid of it in 1806 without replacing it with another. This soon led to the opening idea of a filibuster. The initial purpose for a filibuster was to ensure that the minority opinions were apprehended and understood. Currently, some people still regard the filibuster as a strategy to protect the right of free speech and minorities.

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.

As Ashley Espin wrote, "It is a catch 22 really, congress doesn't have the time to sort through the bills on their own." (Espin. Discussion 4). This is true that congress has an immense work load, and committees make the work load possible. From the fourth discussion, it is clear that many see committees as a necessary aspect with both good and bad to them like everything else, but many lean to too much power, such as Robert Dalpe who wrote, "If committees acting as gatekeepers are biased to a specific side, an important piece of legislation for the other side of the isle could be potentially get blocked."

Maltzman and Sigelman question whether or not House members actively use unrestricted floor discussion to as a political tool. Through analyzing data on the amount of lines spoken on during unconstrained floor time and a member’s relative position in the House, the article finds a correlation between the use of floor time and ideologically extreme and minority party members. Maltzman and Sigelman suggest that the correlation between the use of unrestricted floor time is logical as it provides otherwise disenfranchised members with a chance to control and shape policy discussion. For members on the political fringe it provides an opportunity to introduce policy ideas that the majority party and politically moderate members would otherwise not bar from House debate. The article also found a correlation between the use of unconstrained floor time by party leaders. Maltzman and Sigelman suggest speeches made by party leaders during unconstrained floor time are a result of institutional expectations of their

The majority of the senate's legislative review is done within it's committee system, as committee’s have always been part of the senate(Ray, 2013). “What the author fails to mention is that the senate standing