ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Keeping The Filibuster

1193 Words5 Pages

The US Senate Should Not Keep The Filibuster
The filibuster reform has been a widely debated topic for years. Source sentence. Although some people are in favor of the filibuster, the US Senate should not keep the filibuster because it slows meaningful debate and work, favors the minority vote over the majority, and has racist backgrounds connected to Jim Crow laws.
Those who support the filibuster do so for a variety of reasons. They argue first that the filibuster forces compromise and debate. The supporters of the filibuster also say that the slow movement of legislation increases space for deliberation, allowing senators to pass legislation best representing the will of their constituents. The supporters of the filibuster argue that these …show more content…

During a filibuster, Senate rules allow senators to talk about any subject they choose, which means people can actually just waste as much time as they want, slowing or even worse, halting actual debate. "...in 1935, Senator Huey Long (D, Louisiana) had recited a salad dressing recipe and explained how to fry oysters during a 15-hour-long filibuster attempt to require Senate confirmation for a new federal agency established amid the Great Depression" ("The Filibuster"). This shows the filibuster's ridiculous mockery of the US Senate and eliminating debate over actual issues. The Senate, representing the people of the United States, is supposed to be having purposeful debate discussing the topic at hand, not going off-topic and derailing law-passing when days and weeks really do matter. Today's filibuster halts any debate, causing laws to be stuck for weeks without discussion. The Filibuster is not used to increase thinking time and thought about the issue of the bill at hand but to severely decrease discussion time. "Moreover, a Jan. 2022 study found that not only do filibusters not increase the meaningful debate as defenders claim, but they serve to dampen debate. The study showed that in 2007 when Senate Republicans increased the use of the filibuster, there was a fairly immediate 14% decline in debate. Three legislative sessions later, the debate had declined 28%" …show more content…

The Senators who represent 20% of all Americans can override any legislation brought to the senate, which means they are canceling something that affects 80% of all other Americans. "Because ending a filibuster requires a 60-senator majority vote, just 41 conservative senators (the number of senators needed to protect a filibuster) in the 117th Senate who represent just over 20% of the American population can kill any and all legislation brought by the party voted in to control the Senate, House, and White House" (ProCon.org). If the majority of American people agree on an issue, the U.S system of democracy says the majority vote wins. This is different when a filibuster is because the senators representing only 20% can stop a bill or law from being passed. "By allowing members of a minority party to sidetrack or stop bills that have the support of a majority of senators, critics of the filibuster contend, the tactic gives the minority in the Senate a more powerful role than the authors of the Constitution intended. 'By imposing their will on the Senate, the nerve center of American government, a minority of senators found they could impose their will on the entire nation'" (CITATION). The original founders of our country did not intend for the minority ideas and beliefs of the senate to influence the entire United States. If a majority says that a bill or law

Show More
Related
875 Words | 4 Pages

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va), a member of the Joint Resolutions Committee, released the following statement on the committees decision not to pass the Efficient Legislature Amendment. “During the last session of the Joint Resolutions Committee, Democrats have once again undermined our legislature and by extension, our country as a whole. This amendment proposed a change to the Senate rules to establish a set amount of time that bills in committee could stand without any action. The goal of this proposal was to increase the efficiency of the committee process in the Senate and ensure that action will be taken on bills that directly help our nation. As it stands, bills that have been referred to committees

Read More
562 Words | 3 Pages

Abolishing the filibuster could result in similar congressional errs becoming

Read More
614 Words | 3 Pages

Hamilton (2004) argues these opinions in saying, “ Lobbying is a key element of the legislative process- part of the free speech guaranteed under the constitution… lobbying is simply people bonding together to advance their interests” (p. 83). Instead of lobbying being manipulative, as people seem to think, Hamilton explains it as being helpful to Congress and an import part of debates.

Read More
554 Words | 3 Pages

The legislation was considered by several committees in the house, and in both chambers, compromises arrived at through informal processes altered the bills after the committees reported their legislation… In the Senate, the real possibility of a filibuster shaped the process, making it necessary of Majority leader Mitchell to build through negotiations an oversized coalition. (Sinclair 3). This evolution in the legislative process could be a result of congress manipulating the rules to achieve goals in informal ways.

Read More
547 Words | 3 Pages

Modern congress and its members seem largely concerned and focused on partisan advancements. Though there are many reasons as to why the enormous division in congress is as it is, there is one factor that draws the most attention. Filibuster an action that is used by most congressmen and women to delay the passage of laws, has increasingly over the course of time become a negative action rather than positive. The use of mostly long speeches as ways to prohibit and hinder bills or laws is now being used by many senators to advance personal and party goals thus, it is crucial that the ban of filibuster must be considered and replaced with the simple majority rule. First and foremost, some reasons as to why filibuster should be exempted from

Read More
666 Words | 3 Pages

An example of this would be Gun Control laws. Gun control laws have been at a gridlock since 1999, after the massacre at Columbine High School. The House and Senate are constantly against each other on this topic. One side wants to implement gun control laws, meanwhile the other wants to leave it as is. Neither side can get enough votes to pass it, so they are stuck at a stalemate, or at least they were.

Read More
175 Words | 1 Pages

A filibuster is a tactic in the legislative process sometimes used in the US Senate by opponents of a bill to block its passage. In the Senate use their unique right to unlimited debate as a way to prevent or delay the Senate from ever voting on a bill. Senator’s work together can practically debate forever, tying up the legislative agenda until the proponents of a bill finally give up their battle. Filibusters are not allowed in the House of Representatives because House rules limit the time allowed for debate on bills. In 2013 because of Democratic frustration about filibusters of judicial and executive branch nominees the filibuster’s rules changed.

Read More
317 Words | 2 Pages

Although some believe filibusters in the Senate can be a manipulative interpretation of the constitution, and a waste of time, they are in fact necessary to American democracy to protect the interests of American people and to open the discussion for negotiation on legislation. Filibusters in the senate protect the rights of American citizen’s by allowing a faction of people to shut down legislation they believe to be deficient. On September 24th, 2013 Ted Cruz started the second longest filibuster in American history in efforts to sway the Senate to repeal funding for The Affordable Care Act. Cruz felt as though “it is not working” and “it would be a huge burden” to the working class (Ted Cruz 2013). His filibuster was successful in shutting

Read More
168 Words | 1 Pages

So the large groups need to scare the president enough that he will change what they want, or the president needs to agree with the people and make the change. An example of this is the Emancipation Proclamation. Technically Abraham Lincoln signed the papers that helped lead to the freedom of slaves, but would he have done it, if it weren't for many angry people asking

Read More
1888 Words | 8 Pages

With debate and public consultation being minimized because of obstructions by party lines, citizens are not able to effectively voice their opinions in Senate committees so senators will act in their interests to either approve or deny legislation. If public consultation and debate is shut down from reaching committees then the Senate cannot hear public opinions on how a piece of legislation may impact their community, which severely restricts the Senate from being responsible to the Canadian citizen’s interests while voting on a bill. Although the government says that Senate committees provide public consultation on the legislation being passed, this notion is false because senators shut down any debate that will affect how they view the legislation and

Read More
313 Words | 2 Pages

As the Arkansas State Senate Majority Leader, I understand that there are many controversial concerns regarding the idea of a Constitutional Convention and the thought of setting term limits for a our members of Congress. I have thoroughly weighed the pros and cons of having such said Constitutional Convention and I believe that our nation can benefit from the meeting. As for the proposal to change the amendment in regards to Congress member term limits, it took much deliberation before I could fully take a stance concerning this topic. Of course, the change of term limits would greatly affect our nation, but the question is, “Would the benefits outweigh the risks?” When thinking of ways to oppose this topic, I found that numerous people believe

Read More
550 Words | 3 Pages

Bipartisanship is crucial to passing effective legislation. When both party disagree with each other gridlock occurs. This gridlock forces both sides to stonewall the other to get a bill passed that is lopped sided favoring one party over the other. Bipartisanship allows all voices to be heard which creates a bill that congress can pass that represents the greater good of the country rather than one party’s constituency. With bipartisanship congress works smoother and is favored by the country with positive rating.

Read More
672 Words | 3 Pages

Today, the filibuster is a common scene in the U.S. Senate. It has been in practice for over 150 years, defending the minority against the majority vote. Measures to limit filibusters are implemented in Congress currently, including Woodrow Wilson’s

Read More
1586 Words | 7 Pages

In recent years, the U.S. Senate has been embroiled in a countless number of filibusters which have a long history in the U.S. Congress. To supporters of the filibuster, such political procedures play an important role in a democratic society. They believe that the filibuster embodies the spirits of democracy to protect the minority from oppression in the United States. Reformers or skeptics of the filibuster, on the other hand, believe that filibusters sometimes severely hinder the operations of the government. Although people have witnessed many filibusters in history, the number of filibusters in the past few years surprised and infuriated many in America.

Read More
503 Words | 3 Pages

Attempting to enact significant legislation requires Congress and the White House to compromise and anticipate what others will approve of and pass. When a bill successfully passes both houses of Congress, which has become increasingly difficult due to party polarization and radical groups within the House of Representatives and the Senate, it then goes to the president for signing. This is a lengthy process, and in order for groups of people with opposing views to settle in agreement on a measure, a great deal of negotiation is often required. This can result in a piece of legislation that is a compromised, diluted version of its original form that is not an effective solution to the initial problem. Vague, weak legislation often necessitates further action by the other two branches of government in order to interpret and execute it properly.

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Keeping The Filibuster

Related Topics

Open Document