Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    14 Nov '12 09:01 / 1 edit
    A nasty disease, an unethical way to prevent the duly elected members of parliament from carrying out the tasks for which they were elected.

    It's not allowed under Australian parliamentary rules, but opposition parties are finding ways to circumvent the individual speaker's time limit which is supposed to prevent it.

    From what I read in this forum, it's allowed in the US. How come?
  2. 14 Nov '12 10:08
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    From what I read in this forum, it's allowed in the US. How come?
    It seems it can be over-ridden by a 60% majority. I guess if you cant get 60% on your side, then further discussion is needed?
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Nov '12 14:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    A nasty disease, an unethical way to prevent the duly elected members of parliament from carrying out the tasks for which they were elected.

    It's not allowed under Australian parliamentary rules, but opposition parties are finding ways to circumvent the individual speaker's time limit which is supposed to prevent it.

    From what I read in this forum, it's allowed in the US. How come?
    It's not allowed in the House but is in the Senate because the arbitrary rules of the Senate allow it. All the rule really means is that 41 out of 100 Senators can shut down a bill. There's nothing written in stone that a simple majority is sufficient for everything. Supermajorities are already necessary to do certain things, such as ratify treaties, override vetoes, remove impeached officials and propose Constitutional Amendments. The rule that 41 votes can kill a law may not seem like a good idea to you, but it's not inherently less logical than requiring 50 votes to kill a law.

    The truth is that the majority party (in this case, the Democrats), could kill the filibuster any time if they wanted to. But they know that pendulums swing and they might be in the minority one day soon. This is the reason the Republicans did not kill the filibuster in 2005.
  4. 14 Nov '12 14:21
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    From what I read in this forum, it's allowed in the US. How come?
    Because the US parliamentary system is a joke.
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    14 Nov '12 16:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    A nasty disease, an unethical way to prevent the duly elected members of parliament from carrying out the tasks for which they were elected.

    It's not allowed under Australian parliamentary rules, but opposition parties are finding ways to circumvent the individual speaker's time limit which is supposed to prevent it.

    From what I read in this forum, it's allowed in the US. How come?
    The Founders wanted change to be slow and deliberate. The filibuster is a sub-constitutional rule of parliamentary procedure that fulfills that intent. I just wish they had more carefully considered the tyranny of Executive Orders.

    EDiT: The filibuster is the last bastion of hope for America.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Nov '12 22:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    The Founders wanted change to be slow and deliberate. The filibuster is a sub-constitutional rule of parliamentary procedure that fulfills that intent. I just wish they had more carefully considered the tyranny of Executive Orders.

    EDiT: The filibuster is the last bastion of hope for America.
    The Founders did not create the filibuster. The first was not used until more than five decades after the Constitution was ratified and only 16 were used in the entire period of 1840-1900. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html
  7. 14 Nov '12 23:00
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's not allowed in the House but is in the Senate because the arbitrary rules of the Senate allow it. All the rule really means is that 41 out of 100 Senators can shut down a bill. There's nothing written in stone that a simple majority is sufficient for everything. Supermajorities are already necessary to do certain things, such as ratify treaties, override v ...[text shortened]... inority one day soon. This is the reason the Republicans did not kill the filibuster in 2005.
    It is irrational to require more votes to terminate stalling of a bill than to decide on the bill.
  8. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    14 Nov '12 23:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Founders did not create the filibuster. The first was not used until more than five decades after the Constitution was ratified and only 16 were used in the entire period of 1840-1900. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html
    As I understand it the Senate establishes its parliamentary procedures on the first day of a new session, and these procedures are decided by a simple majority vote that cannot be filibustered. This means on January 2013 the Democrats could use their majority to establish that only, say, 55 votes are required for cloture. Is this true?

    If true, I think Democrats should go for it. It could be used against them in the future, of course, but it's a small price to pay to make the Senate function again.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    15 Nov '12 01:57
    Originally posted by JS357
    It is irrational to require more votes to terminate stalling of a bill than to decide on the bill.
    Fine. Then call it requiring 60 votes to pass a bill. You say "tomato."
  10. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    15 Nov '12 02:11
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Founders did not create the filibuster. The first was not used until more than five decades after the Constitution was ratified and only 16 were used in the entire period of 1840-1900. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html
    Did you freaking see that I called it sub-constitutional? That means the Founders didn't create it.
  11. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    15 Nov '12 02:12
    Originally posted by JS357
    It is irrational to require more votes to terminate stalling of a bill than to decide on the bill.
    Our Senate is a uniquely irrational place. Just look who runs it.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    15 Nov '12 02:40
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Did you freaking see that I called it sub-constitutional? That means the Founders didn't create it.
    "Sub" means "under"; you seemed to suggesting that the filibuster was part or at least consistent with their vision. It is not; they specifically rejected a super majority requirement in the legislature for almost everything.