| Author | Message | ||
     Mountainstorm |
Can anyone explain what good a filibuster privilege is for the American People? Clearly it has been abused by both parties. Clearly it is keeping business from getting done. I am not a lawyer but can't the privilege of blocking by filibuster simply be repealed or revoked? Is there any way the people of the USA can do this without involving Congress? By petition or something? There has to be a way We the People can reign in Congress...they have gone mad. | ||
| Slaughter |
Our system was DELIBERATELY constructed by our founders to PREVENT any one person or party from EVER having the ability to govern as dictator or royalty. The most efficient governments have ALWAYS been those ruled by royalty and dictators. Efficient Government is NOT ALWAYS a GOOD Government. | ||
| Fahren |
We wouldn't have to change anything if enough Americans could agree on a group of candidates to create a >60 majority in congress. But since people in government are also intent on both sides on gerrymandering, or manipulating election district boundaries to get specific demographics represented in a district, we have what is (perhaps) an illusion of a deeply and almost equally divided citizenry. The true sense of conservatism is to "conserve," or keep intact the status quo, as established by precedent. If we the people elect an almost equally divided congress (i.e., no absolute majority of >60), we should not expect things to change in any radical right or left way. But I don't think that one can point to any one FUBAR thing in Washington and put the blame on that. The malaise is deeper than that. | ||
| Hootowl |
There is nothing in the constitution that requires 60 votes to end debate. That's what they call a "house rule", and it is subject to change. They call it the "nuclear option". Neither side appears willing to use that option, as it would then be used against them later on. | ||
| Mikej |
That lone guy standing in front of the tank in Tinneman (sp?) Square was in a way engaged in a fillibuster, a committed person standing against a more powerful force. Perhaps a better question is why is this an issue for the OP, is it perhaps he is in support of an issue that is being fillibustered? I suspect if the game was reversed then he might be thankful for the fillibuster option/tactic. I won't argue against the notion that legislative practices are messed up and in dire need of change (like detaching the trailers which often account for a large portion of the cost of each chunk of legislation, if it can't stand on its own without coercion then perhaps it ain't such a good thing to begin with, eh? ). That's my one political post for the day/week. Good day. | ||
| Reindog |
What is wrong with Congressional deadlock? The less that Congress achieves, the better off we are. Mark Twain probably said it best. Here are a few of them. There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress. No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the congress is in session. Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble, through the rivaly of schools and creeds that are anxious to obtain official recognition, and there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die, and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise. | ||
| Strokizator |
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. - Will Rogers | ||
| Mountainstorm |
I guess nothing should surprise me on the Q board, but are you guys just being flippant or do you really think deadlock is good for America? And no I don't have some agenda other than getting America moving. I'm neither a Dem nor Repub. They all look the same to me. | ||
| Strokizator |
“That government is best which governs least.”- Thomas Payne (1737-1809) So it's not a new phenomenon at all. What this country needs is less governing not more. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I like term limits for the monkeys, and the inability for them to vote for their OWN pay raises. Out in twelve. If you cant get your agenda up, billed and passed in that amount of time, well how f'n affective are ya anyway. From either side of the aisle. OUT IN TWELVE. I have sent both my rep and congress seat member that they will receive a NO vote from me. And I am encouraging my social network to do the same ( I knowz a few people  ) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Filibuster is a great thing. Why would you want to end it? | ||
| Reindog |
I am as serious as cancer in what I posted. Why do you think an unfettered Congress is a good thing and in your best interest as an American? Additionally, a Representative should only be a part-time job with per diem and no benefits. Only patriots would come forth whose payment is service to country. Senators should not receive golden benefits and pensions greater than ordinary citizens and should be subject to the laws they pass. Representatives and Senators both need to be subject to term limits. | ||
| Rwven |
The Senate is not a democratic representative body. Unlike the House which has one Representative for each 30000 citizens the Senate has two Senators from each state regardless of state size. The House tends to swing with the ever fickle will of the people. The Senate was set up to deliberatively dampen that swing. The Founders were a pretty savvy bunch, they understood the volatile nature of prevailing public opinion. They called it the "Tyranny of the Majority". | ||
| Bluzm2 |
Ronald, You sir are DEAD on. Folks need to study civics a bit more.. Brad | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
They don't even teach civics in school any more. It's tragic. Uneducated mob. | ||
| Poppinsexz |
The best years are when congress does nothing. There is no reason for us to "get moving" I think the country was doing pretty well until the gov got involved- ie fannie and freddie. Now we will be subsidizing them forever. Oh and lets not leave out the banks, GM , Chrysler and any other leaches. Failure should have been an option as nothing good will come of this except they now know Obama will pay their bills with our money. Run your business like shit O will save you. | ||
| Sifo |
The Senate is not a democratic representative body. Unlike the House which has one Representative for each 30000 citizens the Senate has two Senators from each state regardless of state size. The House tends to swing with the ever fickle will of the people. The Senate was set up to deliberatively dampen that swing. The Founders were a pretty savvy bunch, they understood the volatile nature of prevailing public opinion. They called it the "Tyranny of the Majority". That was "The Great Compromise". One of the truly great ideas that came from our founding fathers. They really did agonize and thoroughly debate these issues before they were penned into the Constitution. End filibusters? Absolutely not. They are a part of the checks and balances built into our system. I doubt that anyone who favors this idea favored it a few short years ago. | ||
| Aesquire |
To let a simple majority rule can be tyranny. For a simple example. Back in 2005 when GWB was Prez. and had a majority in Congress, suppose some bozo wrote a law that required you to tithe 5% to George's church. I don't care WHY he wrote the law, maybe he wanted to be in "King George's" good graces, maybe he saw a chance to absorb all that money through the filter of the Bureaucracy. ( the Federal Govt. pays out in programs less than half what it takes in, the rest goes to salaries of all the people who "run" the govt. ) Now, I'd be happy if some Dem Filibustered that highly un-Constitutional law. I suspect you would be too. Even if he only delayed the bill long enough for this travesty to become public & the phones to start ringing off the hooks in Senate offices, the Filibuster has a good shot at stopping especially horrible things. Does that example sound too off the wall? Didn't a nearly identical thing happen last year? Only the Church and amount of cost to you was different. ( The cost would have been much higher ) (Message edited by aesquire on February 17, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Filibuster is the only mechanism by which late hour, back room deal legislation is able to be brought to light, debated, and the electorate informed. Now remind me again, who was it calling for continued debate on the vote to go to war in Iraq. I can't remember. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Get it moving where?...into the shi****? |
