My point is simply that a super-majority requirement for bills to pass the Senate has no constitutional basis. That's all. It's a construct of the Senate rules and nothing more.
290 Bills Stalled in Senate
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
My point is simply that a super-majority requirement for bills to pass the Senate has no constitutional basis. That's all. It's a construct of the Senate rules and nothing more.
KingCondanomation
New member
There may not be a Constitutional basis for it, but there is deep roots for it's use going back to the founding of the Republic. The house used filibusters til the mid 19th century.
Anyway, I think most people are reacting to how you chose to make your point by trying to describe it as "thwarting the majority" rather than protecting the minority as more civil libertarian minds might like to think of it as.
Personally I read the same thing into what you originally said as the others on here and thought you were floating the idea that you would love to terminate any supermajority requirement under the pretext of eliminating the appeal of the Constitution because I don't trust you at all either.
Anyway, I think most people are reacting to how you chose to make your point by trying to describe it as "thwarting the majority" rather than protecting the minority as more civil libertarian minds might like to think of it as.
Personally I read the same thing into what you originally said as the others on here and thought you were floating the idea that you would love to terminate any supermajority requirement under the pretext of eliminating the appeal of the Constitution because I don't trust you at all either.
I don't really follow all of that in the second paragraph. In any event, in my view Congress should pass a bill eliminating the filibuster beginning in 2016.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's not contrary to the constitution, it just isn't mandated by it. What we refer to as "the filibuster" was the result of an older senate accidentally deleting the rule that shuts down debate. It's not what the founders intended.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
When has the filibuster ever been used to protect the minority? The minority of southerners who wanted to oppress blacks? The minority of Americans who want to keep denying the uninsured healthcare because they like seeing the bodies pile up?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
A filibuster used to take a lot of effort by the minority Party, basically requiring them to hold onto the podium and keep talking, thus stalling debate. These things would go on into the night and became a contest of who could keep awake the longest: the speaker or his audience. When the Democrats were in the minority they saw this as being too difficult so they got some weak-kneed Republicans to go along with them and they changed the rules. Now since the Republicans are in the minority the 'Rats want to change the rules back again.
This is more bullshit politics that you fucking 'Rats love so much.
This is more bullshit politics that you fucking 'Rats love so much.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
What's so great about a republic? The Soviet Union was a republic. A republic is just a really weakly defined shit form of democracy that's not anything unless its combined with strong democratic instutitions.
It's contrary to the constitutional intent where super-majority requirements were explicitly spelled out in certain narrow circumstances. The conspicuous absence of a super-majority requirement for bills to pass the Senate indicated the founders intent for a majority to suffice for the passage of bills. In that way, a super-majority requirement is indeed contrary to the Constitution.
KingCondanomation
New member
Yeah exactly, big surprise. What a goddamn weasel you are, why not just come out with that at the beginning, rather than try and float your bullshit pretend consideration over the Constitution?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The constitution also gives the houses the power to pass their own rules. They let the filibuster slide into existence because of a dumb mistake. But the senate can't make a stone so big it can't lift it; just strike the rule out and you're done with things. Its easy. If I were majority leader, I wouldn't blink at shutting down non-good faith debates at the first instant.
OK. Make it 2018. Better? I said 2016 because that is sufficiently distant in time that we cannot reasonably speculate as to who will be the majority party at that time.
What is the argument in favor of keeping the filibuster other than tradition?
KingCondanomation
New member
And yet the filibuster was used during the founders time in office with no attempt by them to eliminate it. Is that not right there the strongest proof that they had no objections to it?
The real problem is that you and the Waterdork are confusing what a filibuster is with what a super-majority is (in regards to cloture). A filibuster is just the right to unlimited debate. One could easily argue that the founders saw no need to impose any super-majority requirement to stop general legislation from passing because any bill that had strenuous objection could be subject to unlimited debate, which is a de facto way of stopping it from passing with no regard for cloture (as cloture never even existed until 1917).
KingCondanomation
New member
Because it stops government from doing more, just like the founders intended with other means like splitting power up into 3 main entities (a greater likelihood of conflict), or the filibuster (which existed since the founding) or veto power.
GENERALLY government passes more and more laws and more and more spending, so I'm open to keeping any option that exists around that will help curtail that. I suppose you could argue that it could stop government passing cuts to spending but we both know that rarely happens.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You have your very own racist Democrat Party headed by your Robert KKK Byrd to thank for the current filibuster rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Procedural_filibuster
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
No, dumbass, in the founders time, there was a rule to shut down non-good faith debate and proceed to voting, but it was deleted on accident. We need to reverse the senates mistake.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
No, it isn't.
If you're so concerned about the government passing laws, don't allow them to pass anything and watch the US descend into anarchy.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[29] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[29] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Aaron Burr, another traitor Dano loves.
My understanding is that the filibuster did not come into existence until well after the Constitution was ratified.
The filibuster is a de facto super-majority requirement. There can be no real debate otherwise. And again, my understanding is that there were mechanisms for limiting debate in the early Senate.
And really, where there are super-majority requirements in the Constitution, there is no super-majority requirement for the passage of ordinary legislation.
But the founders built in their preferred veto points in the legislative process (which have been added to in addition to the filibuster) and did not see the need for a supermajority requirement in the Senate
And the neither the filibuster or the functional equivalent existed at the time of the founding.
There is no constitutional argument in favor of the filibuster.