Taking a Look at Filibusters

2243 WordsFeb 19, 20189 Pages
Filibusters are quite the conundrum, a pariah of sorts in the realm of U.S. politics, yet an integral part of our body of government. It is imperative that it remains to be kept alive in a warm embrace with the Senate, lest it is reduced to nothing more than a mere accessory to the House of Representatives. By nature, the filibuster is actually a resourceful tactic that utilizes the ideology of free speech to prolong and create an active dialog over legislation or to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. However, in recent years the most unsettling adversity contemporary legislation faces is Rule XXII of the U.S. Senate. Forty-one senators can veto the lion's share of legislation by refusal of invoking cloture (sixty being the magic number). Due to the malapportionment of the Senate, less than forty-one percent of the population could be over represented, resulting in a conflicting vote against cloture sustaining debate indefinitely. The idea of a three-fifths vote is being required for most Senate action can be seen as a modern day thunderstorm that overcasts democratic self-government. The tradition of limitless "debate" in the Senate needs a bit of a review (perhaps a judicial one), as a refusal to vote for cloture should result in a suspension rather than an absolute veto. Simply put, forty-one senators should have the ability to place an extended debate on bills or nominations for a period not to exceed a year beginning from the time they reach the floor.
Open Document