Filibuster!
I am soooo frustrated. I may have mentioned that I am in an American Government Class. Of course, most of the students identify as progressive, or rather liberal, with many supporting Senator Sanders. That isn't particularly surprising, of course, but it goes to show that math is not emphasized.
So what is frustrating me? When we have our discussion boards, We have questions about various aspects of the chapters we are studying. This section has chapters on Congress, the Presidency, the Judiciary, and the Bureaucracy.
So people have not fully weighed in on the last two, but let me give you a flavor of the future. The question on the Presidency was whether the President has power through Executive Orders to make law. The answers are overwhelmingly yes. Not surprising of course, but in their processing that the President has tried to work with Congress (Lie), they completely neglect the FACT that the same electorate that reelected the President ALSO elected a Republican Congress specifically to stop the actions the President was taking. Most of the students feel that when Congress is gridlocked, the President needs to have the power to make laws without them. I know that that is the progressive/liberal mindset, but it wasn't always that way with Democrats. That is why Chris Matthews on his show has asked nearly every elected Democrat what the difference is between Democrats and Socialists. He can't believe that his party has gone full in for the control model. Chris Matthews knows, even if the rank and file millennial doesn't that that path only leads to Communism. They might think FREE! is great now, but they will be enslaved by FREE!.
Now the filibuster. Of course everyone is against it, I mean, in a democracy, who cares about the minority, right? The filibuster is a tool that has no part in the Constitution, and it isn't fair that the majority doesn't get its way. One problem. We are NOT a democracy!!!!! The rights of the minority must be protected. Of course, we shouldn't expect the party of Slavery, the Klan, Jim Crow, Japanese Internment, and Dred Scott to know that, should we? And as to the constitutionality of the filibuster, well, Article I, section V, 2 states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." so, yes, the filibuster is constitutional. But I agree that it needs to be fixed. What is broken? Easy
In the old days, and just so we are not looking backwards, twice in recent memory, a Senator filibustered legislation by taking the floor, and refusing to yield, until a vote of cloture is secured. The Senator could talk about anything. Like read Green Eggs and Ham to his kids watching C-Span, like Senator Cruz did. Or they could go into detail about the bill in question, such as the fact that the Eric Holder Justice Department under this President felt that it was acceptable to kill an American Citizen ON American soil, NOT posing any imminent threat, like Senator Paul did. In case you missed that, those that love giving the government power, The Justice Department, under President Obama could not answer whether an American, suspected of terrorist ties, but posing no imminent threat in this country has a right to Due process, or whether they can just take him out with a drone.
So how do we fix this tool, to make it what it was? Whoever is the President pro tempore of the Senate, should, when a Senator announces his intention to filibuster a bill and there are insufficient votes to invoke cloture, not adjourn the Senate, but rather should keep it in session, and force that Senator to hold the floor. That is the problem with the filibuster today. It isn't the rule of the filibuster that is bad, it is that no one wants to make it painful. Currently, they announce they are going to filibuster, there aren't 60 votes to override it, so they adjourn, until some deal gets worked out. The majority could do that at anytime. Regardless of party. I suspect you would see the number of filibusters drop dramatically if they were forced to hold the floor for hours, knowing that no one can really leave, without losing the floor, and ending the filibuster in that way. By simply doing that, two things would happen. There would be far fewer filibusters, and they could try to work on legislation that can get some of the other party to, if not support, at least allow for a vote, or, two, we would have some very interesting C-Span to watch, and people would get to see the sausage making of legislation for real. Either way, the minority is protected, by having it available, and its use would be much more of a tool of last resort. Every time someone wants to clog the process, make them. Easy as that, and when they walk away, just hold the vote and be done.
So what is frustrating me? When we have our discussion boards, We have questions about various aspects of the chapters we are studying. This section has chapters on Congress, the Presidency, the Judiciary, and the Bureaucracy.
So people have not fully weighed in on the last two, but let me give you a flavor of the future. The question on the Presidency was whether the President has power through Executive Orders to make law. The answers are overwhelmingly yes. Not surprising of course, but in their processing that the President has tried to work with Congress (Lie), they completely neglect the FACT that the same electorate that reelected the President ALSO elected a Republican Congress specifically to stop the actions the President was taking. Most of the students feel that when Congress is gridlocked, the President needs to have the power to make laws without them. I know that that is the progressive/liberal mindset, but it wasn't always that way with Democrats. That is why Chris Matthews on his show has asked nearly every elected Democrat what the difference is between Democrats and Socialists. He can't believe that his party has gone full in for the control model. Chris Matthews knows, even if the rank and file millennial doesn't that that path only leads to Communism. They might think FREE! is great now, but they will be enslaved by FREE!.
Now the filibuster. Of course everyone is against it, I mean, in a democracy, who cares about the minority, right? The filibuster is a tool that has no part in the Constitution, and it isn't fair that the majority doesn't get its way. One problem. We are NOT a democracy!!!!! The rights of the minority must be protected. Of course, we shouldn't expect the party of Slavery, the Klan, Jim Crow, Japanese Internment, and Dred Scott to know that, should we? And as to the constitutionality of the filibuster, well, Article I, section V, 2 states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." so, yes, the filibuster is constitutional. But I agree that it needs to be fixed. What is broken? Easy
In the old days, and just so we are not looking backwards, twice in recent memory, a Senator filibustered legislation by taking the floor, and refusing to yield, until a vote of cloture is secured. The Senator could talk about anything. Like read Green Eggs and Ham to his kids watching C-Span, like Senator Cruz did. Or they could go into detail about the bill in question, such as the fact that the Eric Holder Justice Department under this President felt that it was acceptable to kill an American Citizen ON American soil, NOT posing any imminent threat, like Senator Paul did. In case you missed that, those that love giving the government power, The Justice Department, under President Obama could not answer whether an American, suspected of terrorist ties, but posing no imminent threat in this country has a right to Due process, or whether they can just take him out with a drone.
So how do we fix this tool, to make it what it was? Whoever is the President pro tempore of the Senate, should, when a Senator announces his intention to filibuster a bill and there are insufficient votes to invoke cloture, not adjourn the Senate, but rather should keep it in session, and force that Senator to hold the floor. That is the problem with the filibuster today. It isn't the rule of the filibuster that is bad, it is that no one wants to make it painful. Currently, they announce they are going to filibuster, there aren't 60 votes to override it, so they adjourn, until some deal gets worked out. The majority could do that at anytime. Regardless of party. I suspect you would see the number of filibusters drop dramatically if they were forced to hold the floor for hours, knowing that no one can really leave, without losing the floor, and ending the filibuster in that way. By simply doing that, two things would happen. There would be far fewer filibusters, and they could try to work on legislation that can get some of the other party to, if not support, at least allow for a vote, or, two, we would have some very interesting C-Span to watch, and people would get to see the sausage making of legislation for real. Either way, the minority is protected, by having it available, and its use would be much more of a tool of last resort. Every time someone wants to clog the process, make them. Easy as that, and when they walk away, just hold the vote and be done.
Comments
Post a Comment