The Filibuster: Tyranny of the Minority The filibuster continues to be an area of controversy in the United States Senate. Critics of the rule claim that it has corrupted and even broken the institution, while proponents claim that the rule is a savior for the minority against unpopular laws instituted by the majority. Throughout history, the filibuster has shown its potentially dangerous side as well as its positive benefits. After any major party shift in the Senate, it seems that there is always talk of filibuster reform by the new majority. Although reform debates persist, rules and procedures regarding the filibuster have yet to be significantly changed since 1975, when the cloture rule was last amended. The debate has been revived recently with the heightened level of obstructionism in the U.S. Senate by the Republican minority. In this examination, the evolution of filibuster rules and procedures will be discussed. Finally, an argument for reform of the filibuster will be provided by refuting key points made by supporters of the rule. History of Filibuster and Cloture Rules The true history of the filibuster began in 1789 when Rule IX was established which was set up to read as “shall the question now be put.” This initial rule was argued by some to be the first instance of cloture in the Senate. In 1806, the previous questions motion, as it was called, was eliminated, setting the Senate up for possible filibusters since no rule existed that could effectively end debate. Despite the elimination of Rule IX, there were no real filibusters in the U.S. Senate until the 1830s (Wawro & Schickler, 2006, p. 14). The filibuster had not been a major problem in the Senate until the 1840s. The first major incident occurred in ... ... middle of paper ... ... time. It seems to be an endless cycle, every session the majority calls for reform but backs down because they fear that the filibuster will be needed once they return to the minority. References Binder, Sarah A., & Mann, Thomas E. (1995). Slaying the Dinosaur: The Case for Reforming the Senate Filibuster. The Brookings Review, 13 (3), pp. 42-46. Frenzel, Bill. (1995). Defending the Dinosaur: The Case for Not Fixing the Filibuster. The Brookings Review, 13 (3), pp. 47-49. Gold, Martin B. (2008). Senate Procedure and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Resolution to Amend Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, S. Res. 4, 94th Cong., (1975). Wawro, Gregory J., & Schickler, Eric. (2006). Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Throughout the second chapter Levin states that there is a very small turnover in Congress and each time that election time comes into play, most of the same people are elected for position (Levin 19-32). He believes that while term limits are not enough to balance the power of the governing systems it is a step in the right direction and are necessary and a critical building block (Levin 22). In his next chapter Levin proposes an amendment that is to restore the Senate (Levin 33). This amendment would repeal the seventeenth amendment and make it to where all Senators are chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I (Levin 33). Prior to the seventeenth amendment the Senate had been chosen by legislators of each state (Levin 34). Throughout the chapter he goes on to talk about how the Framers of our nation intended the Senate to be chosen and also how we have branched away from that. He discusses several different people’s opinions on how it should be ran and also how it should be managed. He states that John Dickinson made a notion that the Senate should be chosen by the state legislatures (Levin
Filibusters can surely be effective for Senate minority leaders. However, it can have both its pros and cons. Some of the advantages include that the filibuster was created to protect the privileges of the Senators in order to fully debate and modify laws in the United States Senate, therefore securing the concern of all the citizens in America. Filibusters tend to exist thanks to the Founding Fathers ideology of designing a democratic government in which politicians became involved and educated throughout many political processes. Whenever a Senator goes on the Senate floor and talks endlessly for hours on a particular issue, it automatically engages attention to the particular matter, such as the 11-hour filibuster Senator Wendy Davis accomplished
Most individuals with a general background knowledge of the United States Federal Government system are aware that in order for a bill to become a law, it must first pass a majority vote in Congress. There is, however, a very important step in the legislative process that sometimes goes unnoticed. The committee system of the legislation process ensures that the appropriate attention is given to each bill introduced to Congress. Each member of both chambers are assigned to committees and subcommittees, and are expected to become subject matter experts in their respective roles as committee members.
Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek, and Frances E. Lee. Congress and Its Members. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2009. Print.
2. Roche, John P. "The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 8 -- 20).
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
(1956 ). The. Congressional Record (pp. 1). 4459 - 4460 ). Washington, D.C.:
the United States Senate, 1789-1990; Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate, 1789-1990; National Archives and Records Administration.
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
One person was convicted under the act for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice. ”2 This was never challenged by the Democratic-Republicans because of the Federalist-dominated the court rule. The act eventually ended the Federalists in 1800 an... ... middle of paper ... .... Or is it?
The bill was debated and negotiated for nearly six years in Congress, and finally passed amid unusual circumstances. Several times in the legislative process the bill had appeared to have failed, but each time was saved when a couple of Congressmen and Senators switched positions on the bill. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speak Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeses an...
Yes, reform is a realistic expectation in the American political process. Our forefathers intentionally left vagaries in the Constitution. They understood that in order to be long-lasting, some rules would nee...
The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.
It also shows the special function of the House of Representatives. Only the House of Representatives is allowed to propose bills that raise revenue. Article 7 also instills the idea of getting presidential approval on all bills that have passed both the senate and the House of Representatives. If the president vetoes a bill, the bill will go back with suggestions on how to make it better. After the edits from the president, there is another vote. A 2/3rd vote is needed to pass the bill into law (US Const. art I. sec VII).
Otto von Bismarck once said, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” The arduous process that a bill undergoes in order to become a law may seem grueling and pointless; however, the processes high caliber of difficulty allows for the extreme prestige and exclusivity of bills that are passed. Because the process is so exhausting, and filibusters, subsequently requiring a super-majority vote to pass a bill, have always been such a threat in Congress, historically, bills that attempt to reform sensitive issues have not fared well in the legislative branch. However, when Congress does pass controversial laws, it then also faces the task of effectively enforcing them. But, when the process is carried out to completion, laws that are enforced have significant impacts on the everyday lives of the American people—such as laws concerning abortion rights. In the United States, the government and Congress have significantly affected the rights of women with regard to abortions through laws that either restrict or guarantee their legality and availability, while the government’s capacity to do so is affected by the principle of federalism along with that of the separation of powers.