Senate Filibustering System

Filibusters were a common tactic used for preventing the passing of a bill by holding the senate floor and using any means to delay or block

Filibusters came from Congressional struggle revising or eliminating older rules. “The House kept that rule, but the Senate dropped [the previous question motion] from its rulebook in 1806”. The previous question motion drew a motion which said that anyone could close the meeting. So, when Aaron Burr took his stand to clean up some rules in the Senate, particularly eliminating repetitive rules or so called “useless rules”, it

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.

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

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

Because of this their ability to review bills, and legislation is hampered because they lack the public authority. On the other side, when it does not exercise its powers what is the point of having a senate at all, is it not a waste of money to keep senators around if they cannot do their job (Gibbins 2010, 3)? This has led to two distinct camps, the creation of a Triple-E Senate , and the abolition of the senate (Gibbins 2010, 9). However both of these recommendations, as seen above, require constitutional change, leaving reformers no choice but to call for the constitution to be re-opened.

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.

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) eliminated filbusters for most executive branch nominations, a maneuver known as the “nuclear option,” which drew widespread criticism from Republicans.

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 political climate today is increasingly becoming more turbulent as Republicans and Democrats volley for superiority in Washington. The two parties are becoming more polarized by the hour, and this is affecting the ability of the government to move forward and pass legislation and continue to improve America. The Senate is in a state of gridlock on some of the most important issues to the people of the United States to date, and yet the senators which the people elected are instead caught up in fighting the people on the other side of the aisle. They should be listening to what their constituents need and want. Today Republican senators are using filibusters, scare tactics, and even entire news networks

In the United States (U.S.) Congress, filibusters have the ability to break new laws. By strict definition, a filibuster is a legislative tactic involving the use of unlimited debate ("Filibuster", 2018). The U.S. House of Representatives opted to limit debate time and prohibit the use of filibustering by a simple majority vote (Binder, 2010). The continued use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate is controversial, however since only the House of Representatives has a Rules Committee, the filibuster can serve as an extra check in the Senate by allowing the minority party to block a bill from becoming law (Evans & Michaud, 2015). While the historical applications of the filibuster are widely debated, the filibuster plays a unique role in the legislative processes of the U.S. Senate.

It allows the Senate to move faster in terms of considering and passing bills to go onto the floor, by requesting a unanimous consent on the

Lawmakers use filibuster by using procedural rules to block or delay legislative action. The term filibuster refers to a long drawn out debate of a bill carried on by one or more senators. Lawmakers continue to talk about the matter to prevent any votes, lawmakers use other delaying tactics also.

David Brady and Craig Volden’s The Revolving Gridlock discusses the ability of Congress members to prevent and even kill legislation, even if their party does not possess majority control. The authors note that it does not always take opposing political ideology in the Executive and Legislative branches to create an atmosphere of stagnation within government. Instead the conflicting views and sectarian nature of the House and Senate, create sub-parties that become the obstacles of bipartisan compromises, and, in doing so, progress, creating the concept of the “revolving gridlock.” The writers consider the concept to be a direct result of the necessity for majority vote to pass bills and two-thirds to override presidential vetoes. Yet, there