A Senate Sans Filibuster? The fabrication of filibuster is an amusing fairytale story. We constantly hear different version of its history, like it has its origin in the constitution of the founding fathers’ for the senate to cherish the minority rights, but nothing about filibustering was intentional. Even the political term “filibuster” wasn’t popular till the 1850’s and wasn’t put to its full potential till the 1970’s. The birth of the idea of filibustering is actually uprooted in the unintentional deletion of another rule, the previous question motion: “Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837” (Binder, 2016). Since then, there had been several tempering of the filibuster’s power, but it still aid in leveraging the minority’s concern. It’s no surprise that we have pros and antis regarding this influential tool implied on the almighty stage of the senate. Oppositions raised against the act revolves around the concern that filibustering compromises the power of the majority and so the whole government, and the illogicality of the amount of power hand onto minorities and even to individuals in the senate. As Ryan …show more content…
Filibuster is not a mere tactic for delaying certain bills and bring controversies in the senate, it brings a much needed publicity to an issue. Most political decisions are made behind the curtains; the citizens are merely expected to come to the ballot once every 4 years to tick off a box, till then fold their arms, take what they are given and give what they are requested. The art of filibustering attracts the media and the public’s attention, who will raise their own questions and demand answers. Which is the perfect atmosphere for a legislative process to take