In 2008, Barack Obama promised to change the way Washington works. In 2013, we might actually see that change. But it won’t be because of Obama. It will be because a critical mass of senators — perhaps even including some Republicans — decide enough is enough: It’s time to rein in the filibuster.
The problem with a president promising to “change Washington” is that the presidency isn’t the part of Washington that’s broken. The systemic gridlock, dysfunction and polarization that so frustrate the country aren’t located in the executive branch. They’re centered in Congress. And one of their key enablers is Senate Rule XXII — better known as the filibuster.
Filibusters used to be relatively rare. There were more filibusters between 2009 and 2010 than in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s combined. Today, the filibuster isn’t used to defend minority rights or ensure debate. Rather, the filibuster is simply a rule that the minority party uses to require a 60-vote supermajority to get anything done in the Senate. That’s not how it was meant to be.
And it’s not how it has to be. The Constitution states that each chamber of Congress “may determine the rules of its proceedings.” And this week’s election has provided fresh evidence that the Senate, at least, may be preparing to remake its most pernicious rule.
Angus King, the independent senator-elect from Maine, said, “My principal issue is the functioning of the Senate.” He backs a proposal advanced by the reform group No Labels that would end the filibuster on motions to debate, restricting filibusters to votes on actual legislation. The group also wants to require filibustering senators to physically hold the Senate floor and talk, rather than simply instigate a filibuster from the comfort of their offices.
Chris Murphy, the incoming Democratic senator from Connecticut, couldn’t have been clearer: “The filibuster is in dire need of reform,” he told Talking Points Memo. “Whether or not it needs to go away, we need to reform the way the filibuster is used, so it is not used in the order of everyday policy, but is only used in exceptional circumstances.”
And it’s not just the new guys. In an election-night interview on MSNBC, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democrats’ second in command, emphasized the importance of filibuster reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., is a committed guardian of institutional prerogatives who put the kibosh on filibuster reform in the previous Congress. But even he has given up protecting the practice. “We can’t go on like this anymore,” he told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. “I don’t want to get rid of the filibuster, but I have to tell you, I want to change the rules and make the filibuster meaningful.”
That doesn’t go nearly far enough. The problem with the filibuster isn’t that senators don’t have to stand and talk, or that they can filibuster the motion to debate as well as the vote itself. It’s that the Senate has become, with no discussion or debate, an effective 60-vote institution. If you don’t change that, you haven’t solved the problem.
Defenses of the filibuster tend to invoke minority rights or the Constitution’s preference for decentralized power. It’s true the Founding Fathers wanted to make legislating hard. That’s why they divided power among three branches. It’s why senators used to be directly appointed by state legislatures. It’s why the House, the Senate and the president have staggered elections, so it usually takes a big win in two or more consecutive elections for a party to secure control of all three branches.
But the Founders didn’t want it to be this hard. They considered requiring a supermajority to pass legislation and rejected the idea. “Its real operation,” Alexander Hamilton wrote of such a requirement, “is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.” Sound familiar?
The Founders also opposed political parties — though they went on to start a couple — and couldn’t have foreseen how highly disciplined parties would subvert the political system they designed. Instead of the branches competing against one another, as they envisioned, we now have two parties competing uniformly across all branches.
Party polarization has turned the filibuster into a noxious obstacle. Filibusters are no longer used to allow minorities to be heard. They’re used to make the majority fail. In the process, they undermine democratic accountability, because voters are left to judge the rule of a majority party based on the undesirable outcomes created by a filibustering minority.
Ideally, a bipartisan majority of senators would end the filibuster — either immediately or with a delayed trigger six years after a deal is struck — so neither party would know which is poised to benefit. But doing away with the filibuster in the next Congress has some appeal, too. Democrats control the Senate and Republicans control the House; there will be no instant power grab leading to one-party dominance.
Republicans might want to think about getting on the train. Though they’ve mucked up opportunities to take over the Senate in 2010 and 2012, they have another opportunity in 2014, when Democrats will have 20 seats up for reelection and Republicans will be defending only 13. If the filibuster ends now, there’s a real chance that the first party to benefit from a reformed Washington would be the Republicans. That should be a change they can believe in.
King is a weather worn remnant of average intellect, who single-handedly demonstrated his incompetence as a former Governor. To expect anything different would imply that Hope and Change are at the heart of his recent epiphany.
and yet he won and beast your guy substantially. So what does that say about YOUR guy?
Assuming was poor judgement on your part.
“To expect anything different would imply that Hope and Change are at the heart of his recent epiphany.”
I would question who really is the “weather worn remnant” here?
You better circle your wagons dude… but watch out, your suit might just get a little tattered and dirty…
He won handily. Let him get to work without all the demeaning comments. Time to let our elected officials be and give them the support they need to do the job. If he merits criticism once he begins then feel free to let him know. But this kind of comment is simply disingenuous and frankly is an affront to the Constitution itself because it says the very structure of our country is flawed. It is not just good when you win. It is good when whoever wins. Granted we do not have to like the policies of those in charge, but we do have to live with them and I would argue respect it. That is one lesson I have learned from all this divisiveness. I will respect the ‘office’ no matter who holds it once the electorate has spoken.
Resigning yourself, your family and future generations to a fawning posture that honors corruption, deceit and incompetence will only continue the cycle of decline. Washington is now almost wholly comprised of swindlers and hypocrites who represent a nebulous majority of welfare wards, union thugs, effeminates and liberal socialists/communists. There is no honor to found among these. And when the Constitution is ravaged, and our freedoms sacked in lieu of government excess and omniscience, you have only yourself to blame.
Just because others see an America different than yours does not mean it is somehow less than. We are all flawed. That includes you and your comment attests to just how flawed you are. And, yes it is obvious after this election cycle how how many think money can buy our hearts and minds. On both sides. But America is not in decline. She already is making a comeback, at home and abroad. Despite those who would betray her. I probably want to see much of what you want to see happen. There is common ground. Let us work towards that.
well said.
Go Angus!
The Congress, using the filibuster, may be the only thing keeping a broken presidency from ruining the country.
Amen PFPorlock.
No, Amen Ezra Klein et al.
The senate rule in question is one that prevents a mere majority from ending debate before a minority has a chance to discuss an issue. Recently though, the minority party has abused this courtesy, pretending to want more debate while simply not wanting a vote on the matter at all.
Those who support a ‘filibuster’ are not voting against a bill. They are voting against allowing a vote on a bill to take place. They are shutting down the United States Senate in order to get their way.
A minority of senators should be protected from being run over by a railroading majority (although this is exactly what happens in the house of representatives). But there should be limits on debate so the senate’s work can be done.
> “The Congress, using the filibuster, may be the only thing keeping a broken presidency from ruining the country.”
Plenty disagree with you and so re-elected Pres. Obama and elected the independent in hopes of ending this spoiled brat method of imposing the will of the extremist minority on the Nation.
Do you read the news, or just make comments ?
And once the filibuster is tamed, President Obama, Senator King and the Senate majority will have free rein to improve upon the successful policies of the last four years….
Isn’t that why we elect people though? So they can enact the agendas they campaigned on? Why should the party that essentially lost the election get to be the ones who dictate?
It has worked both ways over the years for both parties. It’s call balance. Nearly 50% of the people did not vote for Obama…they still need a say in OUR government.
No, it hasn’t worked both ways. The Republicans usage is record breaking, they require it for every piece of legislation, every confirmation, etc.
It HASN’T worked both ways over the years. That’s simply not true.
And what are you talking about? They still have a say in the government. There are minority party representatives in office. If they didn’t have the filibuster they wouldn’t have a say? They only have a voice if they can block everything? That’s a ridiculous assertion.
During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a
key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort
to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit.
Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to
filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor,
Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito. I think you will find that what I said about both parties using the filibuster is true.
Can you answer my questions without changing the subject?
I did answer your question and didn’t change the subject. I said both parties have used the filibuster and that it has worked both ways. You said no. I just offer proof that both parties do indeed use the filibuster. Senator Obama himself has used the filibuster. And as far as who has used it the most????? I’m not going back over 200 years and check.
It doesn’t work both ways — you’re ignoring reality if you say that. The usage by Republicans is unprecedented That’s fact. It has never been used this much and this often in history. Period.
It says in the article that past 2 years it has been used more than 3 decades total. Read the article before writing your incorrect nonsense comments.
I support you here grumpy. Both have. And it needs to stop. Change what needs to be changed to make the filibuster work the way it was intended and get rid of the obstructive sections. We have to do something. Anything. If it does not work we change it. It certainly is not working the way things are set up now.
very relevant. Democrats have acted like spoiled brats who demanded to get their way and deliberately blocked many Bush Appointments. They are the ones most associated with filibusters or do you need a reminder that Harry Byrd and his Klux’ers were all Democrats?
Obviously they were doing it deliberately if they were blocking the appointment. You’re just spouting nonsense at this point. Byrd and the KKK? Still? Again, irrelevant nonsense.
Filibusters and Democrats go hand in hand…..and are part of Senate history….you should know that, and if you don’t , shame on your ignorance.
The past 2 years have had more filibuster used than 3 decades total. Read the article before you start trying to tell me I’m ignorant. You’re just projecting your faults onto me. Your lies and ignorance don’t magically erase the truth.
Did you listen to his acceptance speech? He acknowledged that and he said he wanted to hear from you. Now duly elected he leads all of us. But the stranglehold that one segment of our society, the Tea Party conservatives, must not be allowed to dictate to the rest of us. The mandate is GET SOMETHING DONE!
Yes I did and I have to admit he gives nice speeches. Yes he is our duly elected leader, but that does not mean we all agree with him. Would you feel this same way if Mitt had been elected and was to push through something you did not believe in and your party had no say in the issue? Our forefathers were very far sighted. The winning side can not have total control over the government. The losing party needs input and some say in OUR government, balance. Just as with compromise, it is give and take by both sides. Each side has something they like and something they don’t like. And yes the mandate from both sides is GET SOMETHING DONE. It’ is not your government or mine….it’s OUR.
Agree completely. I have been arguing for common ground for quite a while. It used to be when there was a difference between Senate and House versions of bills they went into conference and ironed out a compromise. When was the last time that happened? But here is the way one person described it which I think is the most accurate description given the stranglehold Tea Party Representatives have on their own party: R says 20%. D says 10%. R says 20%. D says 13%. R says 20%. D says 15%. R says 20%. Ds stop talking. There has been no compromise. Obama definitely compromised on ACA. We did not get a public option. Many, many of us wanted a public option. Option, not mandate. We did not get it. So I am hoping that the Rs will actually compromise. And, get behind the compromise measure.
I must disagree with you on Obama and ACA and compromise. I was unemployed at the time of the ACA hearings. In one of the hearing that I was watching, where Obama was in attendance he told the republicans they were welcome to come aboard, but he did not need their input nor their votes. He went on to tell them elections have consequences. I didn’t see a lot of compromise in that exchange. That was pretty much the end of the open hearings.
Cannot comment as I cannot find anything regarding what you saw. Do not know the context or at what point in a rather long process this occurred. I do know that the original Senate version was a bipartisan effort and it was the one that was ultimately passed with a concession made by Obama on abortion to get it passed. But I can see how watching something like that might affect how you perceive his role in the deliberations. Personally I want him to draw the line he will not go beyond. That is his job as the Executive. Balance of powers right? He seems to be doing that now. That is the mandate he has. It is what he was elected to do.
Thank you for a respectful discussion and lets hope cooler head can prevail and a compromise can be reached and the people work can be done. It’s a job I wouldn’t want.
Their is NO Balance when 95 % of the Republican Party signed a ” No Tax Pledge ” to an unelected lobbyist!
Crippling the the Institution of Government for the want of an ideology of “me first” !
If you think this is the first time one party has “crippled the Institution of Government” over another party you need to do a check of history. And as said, both parties have done it and like it or not it is Balance. Remember the Dems. will not always be in power and when they are not you will still want a voice in OUR government.
That party won the House and the House is more reflective of the people’s will than the Senate; so compromise is called for. You didn’t win; some would say you lost the mandate you had in 2008; we don’t have a dictatorship run by the White House yet….but getting there.
Young people turned out in higher numbers than ’08 as did some other groups who prevailed over the white folks. Only 39% of the white folks voted for him. I am proud to be one of the 39%. We put him in the White House. You don’t have to like it but you will have to live with it. There IS a mandate and this President is well aware of it. There are ways he can get things done without Congress and I hope he uses every tool at his disposal.
Only 39%? That’s essentially the number of white people that always vote for the Democratic candidate. It’s exactly the number that Clinton got in 1992.
No they didn’t. The youth vote of 19-29 year olds was far fewer than in 2008….”youth voters were not as one-sided in 2012 as in 2008 (66% and 32% in 2008 vs. 60% and 37% in 2012)”….the slick talking point is ‘electoral college vote!!, but the popular vote was way down.
Nor do I have to live with it; I can just watch the scandals and hold him accountable for them. Betrayus indeed! And ‘ways he can get things done without Congress’…my, my, my what subversive threat to our Democracy you just uttered.
Not according the PBS reports. That group was up. More turned out. Up 1% by all accounts I have read. No. They are perfectly legitimate when Congress fails to decide. He does have powers granted him. When Congress refused repeatedly to appoint to the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he was able to do so when they were in recess. And he does have veto power. And I hope he uses it. Granted there will be things all of us disagree with him on. We can make our concerns heard. But after he has listened to us all he must make the decision he thinks is best for the country. And I trust him to do that.
LOL! No, the House is the product of gerrymandering. That concept wouldn’t exist it wasn’t a factor.
You guys are sad and pathetic. Delusional and refuse to operate in reality. It’s just spin spin spin. That’s why you guys had such a massive loss last week. And the whole time beforehand, you kept telling each other that the polls were lying and that it was a conspiracy working against you. It’s you working against yourselves.
Oh, yeah and the gerrymandered districts that keep wacky Democrats in Power don’t count????? Or the fact that McCain got more votes than Obama? Or that Democrats now profit from winner take all electorial college voting when they tried to get proportional allocation during Bush years?
Or that Bush got 44 % of the Latino vote(44%) and Rubio will get 80%, while Chrisie will sweep the Middle Class vote…..ready to lose again and again?
McCain got more votes than Obama on what planet? Obama got millions more votes than both McCain and Romney, so again, you’re just spewing nonsense.
Dude, Republicans lost. Deal with it. And stop fact checking people out one side of your mouth and crying “dictatorship!” out of the other. It’s giving me an cognitive dissonance headache.
Democrats got a million more House votes than Republicans. They gained House seats.
You’re going to pretend that gerrymandering isn’t a factor? That’s dishonest.
…ah-yup, by passing them, finally.
You’re even a failure at sarcasm.
“Do you read the news, or just make comments ?”
“You’re even a failure at sarcasm.”
Gawd. Kids these days.
In other words, ‘you won, now get the f* out of our way’.
> “now, get the f* out of our way”.
Yes, that’s just what one needs to do if you disrespect American democracy and the voice of the people, to the point of supporting PFPorlock’s contentions that the majority of Americans voted to keep ” a broken presidency” just for the sake of “ruining the country.”
What else but, as YOU, not I, put it, “now, (shut up, just vote, and ) get the f* out of our way” should be said to stuff like that ?
America’s voters like myself voted in Obama, but were wise enough to vote in a Republican leash on his excesses. In case you haven’t gotten that far in school, it’s called ‘checks n’ balances’….so deal it with and stop this delusional ‘winner take all’ mentality
More new Democrats were elected to Congress than Republican despite the redistricting designed to the GOP advantage in many States.
So I’ll go with the importance of how things are trending.
Just as you conservatives said, in the closing days of the Presidential race,
that is what really matters the most.
So relative to National office, of all those possible, how many of Le Page’s GOTea Party were elected from Maine ?
More trending ?
Dirigo ?
Did you look at how close the popular vote was or do you always just push your own extreme leftist agenda on here?
Define broken. Define ruin. Neither is taking place except for the dysfunctional Senate.
“Broken:” Spending far more than we are taking in, or can take in, with no plans to stop. “Ruin:” what happens to those who do so.
Of course, countries can’t really go broke since they can always print more money. I’ll throw that definition in for free, “inflation.” Or “Weimar.”
Then you shouldn’t have elected a president who would needlessly start wars and who’s limp controls on banking and similar hustlers nearly put us into a depresion. there is no doubt anyone among us could find falt with certain details of presidential governence over the past four years, but they were 10 times better than what we saw with bush.
“Then you shouldn’t have elected a president who would needlessly start wars and who’s limp controls on banking and similar hustlers nearly put us into a depresion.”
Er, without defending the mistake that was GWB, you do realize you’re describing your guy, too, don’t you? It’s not ‘Bush bad, Obama good’, it’s ‘Bush bad, Obama bad too’.
You lost. Obama won. He is fully restored as President of the United States of America and many of us have got his back. That includes Binders Full of Women. You can maintain your myopic view but the rest of us are moving on. There is work to do. And, we are ready to get to work to make some changes and we believe this President will support us. You are a member of a dying species. May you RIP. America will move forward without you.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the filibuster, but I think they should actually have to filibuster — stand there and talk, block — to use it.
Precisely right. And I’ve heard a congressional scholar recommend only one filibuster per bill. If it’s that important, stand up and talk it to death. And you get one bite at the apple, so make it count.
Filibusters are a last defense from tyranny.
or from trying to make 10 million illegal aliens citizens/registered Democrats
> “Filibusters are a last defense from tyranny.”
Except when they are no compromise, extremist minority’s means of imposing it.
Who’s afraid of majority rule in America, conservatives ?
It’s funny the Dems. keep saying compromise. What they are meaning is we won…do it our way. Compromise takes BOTH parties to give a little.
You are proving my point. Your opinion of a political group is a great example. Placing personal and or political interest over the best interest of a nation.
and the reason why they’ve been used more in the past 3 yrs than in theprior 30 is?
Might have something to do with the most divisive President ever. Never have I witness a President, also known as the leader of our nation, target one group of citizens, with help of non-citizens.
Right. Never you have.
Amen!
The Filibuster was purposefully designed! Read the Founding documents! It prevents one party rule– whether you like it or not. It has been used by both sides of the political spectrum throughout our nation’s history.
Actually, the filibuster as we know it today came about as a mistake. See:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder
Read the article. It’s been used more in 2 years than 3 decades prior. That’s ridiculous. People don’t like the gridlock. Did you not notice the single digit approval ratings for Congress earlier this year?
It’s not even a filibuster anymore, but “cloture” – a filibuster without the effort or pain.
In the May 2004 issue of Harper’s Magazine, Richard N. Rosenfeld argued in favor of abolishing the Senate altogether. From the article:
In America today, U.S. senators from the twenty-six smallest states, representing a mere 18 percent of the nation’s population, hold a majority in the United States Senate, and, therefore, under the Constitution, regardless of what the President, the House of Representatives, or even an overwhelming majority of the American people wants, nothing becomes law if those senators object. The result has been what one would expect: The less populous states have extracted benefits from the rest of the nation quite out of proportion to their populations. As Frances E. Lee and Bruce Oppenheimer have demonstrated in their Sizing Up the Senate, the citizens of less populous states receive more federal funds per capita than the citizens of the more populous states. And what happens if the larger states, with a majority of the people, object? Not much. Today, the nine largest states, containing a majority of the American people, are represented by only 18 of the 100 senators in the United States Senate.
What Democracy: The case for abolishing the United States Senate
This, of course, was a deliberate purpose of the Senate. So that *states* were represented as entities, not necessarily their population. The way senators were picked originally bears this out.
This is true, but there were only 13 states at the time. The small population states like Delaware and Rhode Island were concerned of being crowded out in a unicameral legislative body, understandably so. But it’s important to keep in mind that these small population states were the minority back then, not the majority as they are today. What was then a protection has now changed.
I agree, and I’d be interested seeing a discussion about a differently assigned Senate. But at the same time, I don’t need the California Democratic Party having so much say and sway, unchecked.
It’s just one body though. The Senators are there essentially representing the states and the Representatives are there representing the people. I think that is a fair balance.
Both senators and representatives represent the people of their states, not the legal entity of a state. I’ll note that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires that representatives come from “districts,” political divisions of a state. Maine could elect both of our representatives in statewide contests; California could do the same with her 53 representatives.
That’s why I said essentially Senators represent the states. I really don’t get what your point is though, if we did it your way, the Senate would just be a smaller version of the House. What’s the point of that?
For once I truly agree with you!
For some reason the BDN chose not to include the graph that is in the original Klein piece at the WaPo. Here it is:
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w122/Spud1_2007/filibusters-1919.jpg
The Repubs and their leader Mitch McConnell, have been put on notice that the extreme views they hold are no longer viable. The rich little white man no longer pulls the strings thanks to America’s diversity and belief in a better way. Once the culture shock is over for the “boss man,” the dems will move us forward until the Repubs understand how to put the wheels back on their wagons.
” Once the culture shock is over for the “boss man,” the dems will move us forward until the Repubs understand how to put the wheels back on their wagons.”
It’s much more logical to think that they will circle them….
The suits are worried about losing their millions…
Common folk, on the other hand, are worried about living paycheck to paycheck..
Thats the basic difference in philosophies…
Should be a nobrainer as to which side is in worse shape….
I hope they get rid of the filibuster altogether….Then maybe something will actually get done in Washington?
This should not be a political debate but rather an emergency measure!
You fools who remain polarized and line up totally on one side of the isle or the other are the reason that this country can not move forward and fix what is wrong…It’s time for a change… get it thru your thick heads… it’s time for a change!
King was always a Democrat in sheeps clothing and people need to call a spade a spade for what he is – a dyed in the wool Democrat!
blah blah blah…some more tea party talk…you fools are beginning to sound just like a broken record…
So what?
Finally, proposals to restore sanity in the Senate. Can’t come soon enough.
Angles will do what he deems is in his own best interest. That is what he has always done.
Kinda funny. Dems. have used the filibuster themselves over the years and that was ok. Now the GOP has used it and most likely will again, it’s bad and should be done away with. Tell ya what…lets wait till the Dems. want to use it again and then lets take it away.
Republicans have used it more in 2 years and than it was used totally over 3 decades. That’s not an issue?
No…it isn’t an issue. If whoever is in the minority party has really no say, it is a form of checks and balances to not let bills get steamrolled through with little or no input from the minority party. Remember the cry “we won, we will write the bill”? If either party voted for something that would hurt this country just to play nice….they should be hung. Plus, we already got a taste of how much got “accomplished” with no one to stop the liberal machine in it’s first 2 years of total control. Good thing that there is someone to keep this from happening again.
You think if they don’t have a filibuster they don’t have a say? That’s nonsense.
No the nonsense is not being listened to and having none of their ideas included in bills or just a token gesture…that goes for both parties. And if you are going to say that doesn’t happen or it hadn’t happened with the first 2 yrs under Obama, then you are talking nonsense. Also, the whining about filibusters happens with either party who is in control. It’s part of the process and should stay put.
So if Republicans only have a voice because of the the filibuster, you must think it’s unfair that Democrats don’t have a voice in the House, right?
they had to, look at the goofball that is in the white house…what’s wrong with this country is who’s in the white house…enough said!!
Yeah, that whole having America vote thing is really awful. We should have our Presidents placed, like dictators.
God, listen to yourself. It’s ridiculous.
So what obama has spent more money the all the presidents combined, whats ur answer to that? spend more,
Your answer seems to be changing the subject. Pathetic.
A “broken” Washington is perhaps the best thing that can happen. We don’t need more laws, spending boon-doggles and pork brought home to the various districts of these paid thieves. Hope that the crooks are stuck in a political vesion of the Mexican Stand-off for the next four years. Checks and balances at work, not just a free for all give-away by the Dems to buy votes and a pinata of goodies for the Republicans to line thier pockets.
Yes, I pretty much said that in an email to Michaud where I supported ending Bush era tax cuts for everyone but want to see the pork taken out too.
I will agree with you on this one.
Dysfunction? What dysfunction? The system is working exactly as it should. The cloture/filibuster rule is the brake that keeps any group from running roughshod over the constitution (as Obama has attempted already) and the minority!
The “new” Obama administration has already signaled support for the United Nations treaty to ban “small arms” so they are looking to use it to end run the US constitution and its hated (by Democrats) second amendment. However, if the Obama administration signs such a treaty, it would still have to get ratified by the senate and there is that cloture/filibuster rule that (thankfully) will get in the way!
Each year of the first Obama administration the government has run a deficit of over a trillion dollars! Just think how much worse it would have been had there been no cloture/filibuster rule.
Let it go. The election is over. Obama won. It is Congress that is broken. We all know that. And no one should hold hostage our ability to govern. Protect what the filibuster is meant to protect and get rid of what encumbers decision making.
Momma, I stand by my post!
Obama has won a battle. The war goes on to preserve the free enterprise system and our constitutional rights that Obama has already, in his “new” administration moved to attack.
When the dollar is removed as the world’s reserve currency and inflation sets in with unemployment far greater than that of BHO’s first term, his “coalition” will fall apart because he will be unable to produce the “gimme’s” he promised to secure his reelection!
I heard no “gimmes”. Can you name one? I did a quick history lesson on the filibuster and learned that as originally established it would do just what you said. The problem is that it is now being used in ways never intended. Kind of like those sub-prime loans. Those were not the intended outcome of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Yeah, the Kenyan Blue Helmets are marching down the street – right now – confiscating everyone’s guns.
Now go back to yer stupid ‘Red Dawn’ video.
Yessah
I think I should warn you: someone is posting nasty and ridiculous comments and signing your name to them!
However, it is not a problem – I can just delete without reading them!
In 1941, we were, a lot like we are now in this County, then Pearl Harbor was attacked, and we pulled together as a Nation. Winston Churchill once said, Americans will always do the right thing, only, after they have tried everything else. Large groups of people are sinking in this economy, we all, and I mean all, including he very rich, must come together and solve this.
Dead wrong, the problem has been the Lack/Absence of Presidential Leadership and I don’t see anything that is going to change that.
And the real history of the filibuster and its use by the Democrat’s party is found in this man’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act sponsored by the Republicans:
“Robert Carlyle Byrd (born Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr.; November 20, 1917 – June 28, 2010) was a United States Senator from West Virginia. A member of the Democratic Party, Byrd served as a U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959 and as a U.S. Senator from 1959 to 2010. He was the longest-serving senator and the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress.
He rose to become one of the Senate’s most powerful members, serving as secretary of the Senate Democratic Caucus from 1967 to 1971 and—after defeating his longtime colleague, Ted Kennedy—as Senate Majority Whip from 1971 to 1977. Byrd led the Democratic caucus asSenate Majority Leader from 1977 to 1981 and 1987 to 1989, and asSenate Minority Leader from 1981 to 1987. From 1989 to 2010 he served as the President pro tempore of the United States Senate when the Democratic Party had a majority, and as President pro tempore emeritus during periods of Republican majority beginning in 2001.[7
Byrd joined with Southern senators to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[28]personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours, a move he later said he regretted.[29]Despite an 83-day filibuster in the Senate, both parties in Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Act, and President Johnson signed the bill into law.[30] Byrd also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968.”
He was the very personification of how to filibuster and many Democrats followed in his footsteps when they were in the minority. …During the 1930s, Senator Huey Long used the filibuster to promote his leftist policies. The Louisiana senator recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for “pot-likkers” during his filibusters, one of which occupied 15 hours of “debate”.[6]
In 1953, Senator Wayne Morse set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[10] although the bill ultimately passed. In 1959, the Senate restored the cloture threshold to two-thirds of those voting.[9]One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when southern Democratic senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd. The filibuster ended when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.[11]A filibuster can be defeated by the majority party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, Thurmond’s attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote. Thurmond’s aforementioned stall holds the record for the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history at 24 hours, 18 minutes.
Without boring you with history, the filibuster is a tactic used by a minority party to block measures that violate its core values, esp. when forced down their throats like the ACA was. Both parties do it, and, unfortunately King’s view just happens to coincide with Democratic and White House views on stifling filibusters to get their agenda passed. …and he wants to caucus with Republicans…lMFAO
Blah Blah Blah
The GOP abused the Filibuster and now they will pay for their obstructionist mendacity.
Forward.
Yessah
I see you put a lot of research in your rely.
The filibuster used by Byrd in the sixties was a true filibuster, not like the one used by Republicans now.
You had to actually stand up and speak for as long as you could to filibuster. Now all it takes is an up or down vote.
Yes,
And these senators actually “filibustered”, they took the time and effort to hold the floor and stand by their guns. The current crop of yo-yo’s in DC, merely claim thast they intend to filibuster, but never actually have to do it to stop every piece of legislation brought before them. If the filibuster is to continue, I say make them go thru with it! As it is currently just a paper exercise.
Sure hope the message they take to DC is that they work for the People. And that political parties should not be used to get ones way.
It probably won’t matter much do to the numbers still seated who are of the my way or the highway mindset and refuse to compromise on anything?
Augus if it has to do with windpower you will be all over it.
Giving Obama a blank check to push all his radical ideas is probably the dumbest thing I have heard of yet on BDN
The filibuster is only a small piece of a larger sinister effort of the Republicans quest to ensure minority rule when they are in the minority.
Kayakyomammy and Grumpy are creating a filibuster in the comment section. Kriss vous etes tanant…
Good luck to them. I am so sick of Republicans and their revisionist history, backward thinking, and dishonest actions. Keep it up folks; the more you deny reality, the fewer and fewer votes you’ll earn. Face it, the People spoke. It was a landslide. Don’t like it? Move.
Do you really expect Angus King to become a puppet to Harry Ried?
If there’s a Quixotic lance to tilt at windmills and the opportunity to fill his personal coffers with taxpayer revenues, then King is you puppet… and more.
YES I DO!
Keep the government divided between the two major parties – it helps save us from more needless regulations and laws being easily passed.
As for Angus, I picture an elderly man with a cane. Attached to the cane is one of those old-fashioned squeeze horns so that he can honk his way up to the podium. Come on guys, he was born while FDR, Churchill, and MacArthur were handling WW II!! How much longer is the old fella going to make his living off of taxpayers? Of course, in a way it makes sense, as Maine has the oldest (or second-oldest) population of all the states. They go with old ideas.