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?
14 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KewpieIt'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.
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 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.
Originally posted by KewpieThe 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.
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?
EDiT: The filibuster is the last bastion of hope for America.
14 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672The 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
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.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by sh76It is irrational to require more votes to terminate stalling of a bill than to decide on the bill.
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.
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderAs 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?
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
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.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you freaking see that I called it sub-constitutional? That means the Founders didn't create it.
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
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672"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.
Did you freaking see that I called it sub-constitutional? That means the Founders didn't create it.