| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:38 pm Post subject: One proposed solution to the filibuster problem |
 |
|
About 15 years ago, there were 39 cloture motions in the Senate, this year 139. Then, the vote on a bill to kill the filibuster was 76-19 against.
Now Sen. Tom Harkin (Ia) is considering introducing the following: "...Harkin said the filibuster has outlived its usefulness.
"Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel -- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours -- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin said.
He and the constitutional scholars agree that the intention was never to hold up legislation entirely.
To keep the spirit of slowing down legislation, though, Harkin's proposal back in 1995 would have kept the 60-vote rule for the first vote but lessening the number required in subsequent votes.
He said for instance if 60 senators could not agree to end debate, it would carry on for another week or so and then the number of votes required to end debate would drop by three. Harkin said it would carry on this way until it reached a simple majority of 51 votes.
"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to pass," Harkin said. "I may revive that. I pushed it very hard at one time and then things kind of got a little better."
http://www.thehawkeye.com/story/harkin-filibuster-121209
It's not a bad solution, although I'd be open to hearing a better idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A bill should be alloted an initial debate period of 2 weeks, which can be ended at any time with a 60 vote majority. After that 2 week period, it should require a 51 vote simple majority to continue the debate; if after 2 weeks the majority of senators do not feel the need to continue debate, it should be over with. If debate is extended, it can be ended by a 51 vote simple majority at any time after that.
Let the majority party enact their agenda. If they're doing a bad job, they can be voted out. Minority party procedural obstructionism should be removed from the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Let the majority party enact their agenda. If they're doing a bad job, they can be voted out. Minority party procedural obstructionism should be removed from the system. |
This is not a majority-rule democracy. This is a Republic. The founders constructed it in such a way so that we would not fall victim to the will of the mob. You realize, there are Americans out there -countless millions of them- who think that they actually "vote" for the President!
Minority party obstructionism is an absolute necessity, regardless of which party is in charge. Nearly every element about our system is designed to throttle otherwise quick changes.
If you think it is difficult to pass a good law, you cannot imagine the effort it takes to remove a bad one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Let the majority party enact their agenda. If they're doing a bad job, they can be voted out. Minority party procedural obstructionism should be removed from the system. |
This is not a majority-rule democracy. This is a Republic. |
Which is why I said majority party rather than the majority of citizens. There's nothing about the majority party being able to pass legislation without procedural obstruction that is incompatible with the idea of a Republic.
| thecount wrote: |
| The founders constructed it in such a way so that we would not fall victim to the will of the mob. |
If you think anything of importance requiring 60 votes in the Senate is some far-sighted plan of the founding fathers centered on minority-party obstruction, you're just being silly.
| thecount wrote: |
| Minority party obstructionism is an absolute necessity, regardless of which party is in charge. |
No, it isn't. Minority party obstruction simply ensures important legislation will always become a tattered, ineffective mess that is brought down to the lowest common denominator.
| thecount wrote: |
| If you think it is difficult to pass a good law, you cannot imagine the effort it takes to remove a bad one. |
Yes, and because minority-party obstruction constantly turns potentially good legislation into rubbish, we suffer under a multitude of bad laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is not a majority-rule democracy. This is a Republic. The founders constructed it in such a way so that we would not fall victim to the will of the mob. |
You are not quite correct. We are not an aristocratic republic nor (officially anyway) an oligarchic republic nor a theocratic republic. We are a democratic republic. The Senate is meant to move more slowly than the House and the Senators are meant to be insulated against the passions of the moment by having 6-year terms. But you will find NOTHING in the Federalist Papers or anywhere else saying we are to have rule by the minority. We have mechanisms in place, most specifically the Bill of Rights and the courts, that protect the minority from arbitrary abuse.
We are not meant to have a system where we need a super majority to pass a law. The super majority is for fundamental changes to the Constitution and the ratification of treaties.
However, it was cute the way you labelled the winning majority party the mob and ignored the significantly smaller group that is allied with people who carried fire arms to town hall meetings. Perhaps 'mob' is another of those words the libertarians have re-defined to their own advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:34 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is not a majority-rule democracy. This is a Republic. The founders constructed it in such a way so that we would not fall victim to the will of the mob. |
Oh, so therefore we ought not rid ourselves of antiquated legislation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Democrats had their chance to get rid of the filibuster when they were the minority party back in 2004.
The short-sightedness of both parties really irks me sometimes. The Senate is a deliberative body, my *ss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Passing legislation that impacts everyone with simple majorities is a horrible concept - two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner - goes the old saw.
Democracy is not the goal. Our goal is liberty.
To defend liberty we need to make it harder to pass any law - not easier.
We should sunset all current laws and rules of the government. We should begin again with a rule that all laws require a 2/3 vote to pass in each house and are subject to a veto from the President if he so chooses, which requires a 4/5 vote to override.
Although, actually, these percentages could be too low.
It should take at least 7/8 to declare war or create or increase taxes.
It used to be that a filibuster of one could continue as long as the Senator in question could go on - nonstop. This was better as well. Cloture votes should be banned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Passing legislation that impacts everyone with simple majorities is a horrible concept - two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner - goes the old saw.
Democracy is not the goal. Our goal is liberty.
To defend liberty we need to make it harder to pass any law - not easier.
We should sunset all current laws and rules of the government. We should begin again with a rule that all laws require a 2/3 vote to pass in each house and are subject to a veto from the President if he so chooses, which requires a 4/5 vote to override.
Although, actually, these percentages could be too low.
It should take at least 7/8 to declare war or create or increase taxes.
It used to be that a filibuster of one could continue as long as the Senator in question could go on - nonstop. This was better as well. Cloture votes should be banned. |
Well you don't want the 7/8s or anything close to that to increase taxes, unless you also implement a higher % of the vote for spending bills. Why? California. Part of the reason it is such a disaster is the budget and tax increases require 2/3s vote from the Assembly and state senate, while any referendum that includes spending just needs 50.01% of the popular vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I suppose we could adopt the liberum veto that Poland used in the 17th & 18th Centuries. Any member of the legislature could simply shout, "I won't allow it!", thus dissolving that session of the legislature and voiding any legislation previously passed. That might satisfy the obstructionists in our group. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Passing legislation that impacts everyone with simple majorities is a horrible concept - two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner - goes the old saw.
Democracy is not the goal. Our goal is liberty.
To defend liberty we need to make it harder to pass any law - not easier.
We should sunset all current laws and rules of the government. We should begin again with a rule that all laws require a 2/3 vote to pass in each house and are subject to a veto from the President if he so chooses, which requires a 4/5 vote to override.
Although, actually, these percentages could be too low.
It should take at least 7/8 to declare war or create or increase taxes. |
How surprising, an anti-government extremist suggesting a system that would effective destroy the government's ability to legislate.
| ontheway wrote: |
| It used to be that a filibuster of one could continue as long as the Senator in question could go on - nonstop. This was better as well. Cloture votes should be banned. |
I would have thought insisting that an individual senator should be able to bring Senate business to a complete halt so long as he can remain awake and talking would be beneath even you, but I guess we're all surprised sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I suppose we could adopt the liberum veto that Poland used in the 17th & 18th Centuries. Any member of the legislature could simply shout, "I won't allow it!", thus dissolving that session of the legislature and voiding any legislation previously passed. That might satisfy the obstructionists in our group. |
It's the only way ontheway's precious liberty can be protected!
By the way, what we is ontheway referring to when he says, "Our goal is libety." My goal isn't liberty, it's justice. Liberty is a good thing that should be allowed insofar as it does not interfere with justice. This fact is made self-evident in how we handle crimes; we restrict liberty for the sake of justice. Clearly justice is the higher principle in our hearts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Being a fan of Daniel Webster, when some people rattle on about liberty I am reminded of Webster's conclusion in his Second Reply to Hayne: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable" (wherein Webster shredded Haynes' attempt to use 'liberty' in defense of secession which itself was an attempt to defend slavery and low taxes.)
A couple of other D. Webster quotes about justice and liberty.
"Justice, sir, is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together."
"Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
