Pros And Cons Of Filibusters

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.

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.

Summary: Some of the issues were the people that denied to agree or support the constitution. Some states did not favor the way the government limited the power for the federal government because they were scared it would overrule state laws and disliked how citizens were able to control as well. Analysis: There were issues because several of states took quite a while to ratify the constitution. The constitution needed at least 9 out of 13 colonies to ratify, however the states did not support the new system. It took 10 months for 9 colonies to ratify. Although, it took almost an year the constitution was

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.

Over the course of the last eight years, the senate became hyper partisan due to unprecedented obstruction and filibuster. Republicans overused filibuster, resulting in the difficulty of Obama appointing any new persons. This is when Democrats brought the nuclear option before the senate. As this occurred, Senator Mitch McConnell stated, “I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this. And you may regret this a lot sooner than you think” (Berman). Inadvertently, Mitch McConnell foreshadowed the future political events. McConnell is a Republican, transparently showing his feelings about the decisions made by the—at the time—majority. Contradicting McConnell’s statement, Senator John McCain expresses that, “This is a body blow to the institution, and I think we’re on a slippery slope.” Recalling past confirmation wars, McCain cannot simply agree with the idea relying completely on majority votes because of the controversy; however, he did follow suit with voting likewise other Republican senates (Kane). Even with disagreements, the Republican party as a whole still manages to shut down the Democratic

The 55 delegates sitting down in the hot, steamy and sticky room debating about what to add extra rules or change the Articles of Confederation. For about 4 months, the people debated about how the government should take care of the problems, not giving the states more power than needed, talking about compromises and many more. On September 17, 1787, the constitution was sent to Congress for review. Then it was sent to the states for ratification. It took about two years for the Constitution for ratification. There were obstacles to be avoided too. The Federalist had to face Anti-Federalist, people who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that because they felt as though it gave too much power to the national government.

When talking about the First Amendment, the law protects us from freedom of speech and free exercise of religion and it also stops Congress from making any new law to prohibit free speech and free exercise. The case involving a Christian printer who refused to print gay pride T-shirts. The printer declined the printing job for T-shirts promoting a gay pride festival on religious grounds, but he did offer the customer to help them find other local printers to do the work for the same price. Based on the information that was provided the printer had a history of rejecting other orders for shirts promoting sexually explicit material/actions and violence.

On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state Legislatures twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution. Numbers three through twelve were adopted by the states to become the United States (U.S.) Bill of Rights, effective December 15, 1791.

The First Amendment is an amendment that protects the right of speech, petition, assembly, religion, and press. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” (heritage.org)

The filibuster, a result of following Vice President Aaron Burr’s request to clean up the Senate’s rule book in 1805, once used to hold procedure by Senators to allow them time to arrive and debate or vote on legislation has been hijacked by minority Republicans into indefinite vetoes of legislation and administration nominations. While scarcely used by Senators to block legislation - President Woodrow Wilson attempt to prepare the U.S. for WWI found it difficult to pass legislation in preparation of the war introduced the cloture rule to close debate by a two-thirds majority vote that was modified in 1975 to a only three-fifths majority - Republicans have exploited this procedure to where even just the threat of a filibuster can block legislation and nominations creating mass gridlock. It was once required, if a Senator wanted to filibuster a bill, to stand on the Senate floor and speak nonstop in an attempt to coerce his cohorts to alter their stance. The filibuster has given a minority in the Senate the ability to veto legislation even if a majority of legislators in both houses and the president approve of the bill. The filibuster, with no precedent in the U.S. Constitution, has given a small minority of 41 the power to control and sway critical legislation in a way not envisioned by the founding framers as they constructed the United States governmental

A filibuster was first intended to let a minority opinion be heard during a senate meeting. It allowed any senator the right to speak. It later became a way for a senator to halt the progress of a bill. The rule was first allowed back in 1806. When it began to become a problem senate urged President Woodrow Wilson to pass a rule called cloture. Cloture was a way for the senate to vote to end a filibuster. It was put in place in 1917. The problem was, it didn’t vote out many attempts at a filibuster because cloture required a 2/3 vote to end a filibuster.

I believe that my side, which is against the “balance budget amendment”, has week arguments. The article does not provide any arguments based on facts, but instead speculations and opinions. The author discusses many negative outcomes that this amendment would have on the stimulus the government provides and efficiency of the economy, despite that his rationale behind these arguments is reasonable he does not provide historical examples, statistics, etc.

The outcomes of this legislation had many pros and cons many of which more serious than others for their own reasons. Some of the cons of this legislation are for one the immigrants had no right to a hearing in the court and had no right of evidence. Also, it was considered as unconstitutional according to the Republicans. Finally, another big part of this legislation is that it hindered freedom of speech and freedom of the press because some people were arrested when they spoke out against these acts or made journal articles bashing the Federalists. Some of the pros of this legislation passing somewhat came from the cons, for example, all the people who were arrested under this act were pardoned by the new president which was Thomas Jefferson.

I would inform the senator about him breaking one of the five guidelines for ethical speechmaking. Even though in his eyes he is just being honest in what he say he should avoid name-calling and other forms of abusive language in his speech or risk having people question his thoughts and ideas. He should always be fully prepared for each speech but having words that attack or belittle someone could back lash and hurt his image. He is entitled to his beliefs but using such strong offensive words toward his rivals could detour from his main point of the speech. When you are trying to win a vote you shouldn't use harsh and unsavory words that could upset or be looked down upon by your voters. If he should attack anyone make sure it is ethically