Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (683952)	5/27/2005 5:18:30 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Brian, that is a question no one else seems to be asking. What value is the filibuster to our democracy in the first place? The libs hate anachronistic rules (witness their railing against the electoral system of electing the President) but love the anachronism (much greater IMHO) of the filibuster. Will

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (683952)	5/27/2005 5:40:43 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

"Can anyone please tell me why a filibuster is necessary?" Oh, I don't know... (I could go either way on the matter of 'necessary') but the Senate was always --- from inception --- designed to be an institution MUCH SLOWER TO ACT then the House, much more 'deliberative' and a legislature where minorities had more political powers then they do in the House. A minority's ability to slow down action by a majority with one of these legislative tools is consistent with that original formulation for the Senate. There are several things that illustrate this 'design concept' of the founders, from the contemporaneous commentary the founders left for us, to the SIX YEAR TERMS of Senators (vs. two years in the House), to the MASSIVE MULTIPLICATION OF SMALL STATE POLITICAL POWERS (minorities, rural areas, etc.) BROUGHT ABOUT BY GIVING EACH STATE TWO SENATORS --- REGARDLESS OF THE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS IN THE VARIOUS STATES (again, unlike the House where seats are allocated evenly by population).... One way to increase majority powers in the Senate would be to change the rules to favor simple majorities... another would be to change the Constitution to ELECT SENATORS BASED UPON POPULATION (like House members are allocated). Of course, all the 'empty States' would scream bloody murder.... All this seems to be diverting us from the earlier disagreement.... You aren't denying anymore the truth of the facts I posted, are you? ================================================ Re: [Please show me in the official Senate rules anything that disagrees with the facts I've posted about the rules.] [As you should know, the US Constitution granted to the Congress the power and authority to set it's own rules of behavior --- as the Congress (House and Senate) as done ever since.] [Only the Senate as the power to confirm or deny Presidential appointments, and currently the OFFICIAL RULES OF THE SENATE (as I'm sure the official Senate Parlimentarian --- a good solid Republican steeped in years of study of the institution's rule book --- will be happy to confirm) state plainly: 1) Cutting off debate (cloture) requires a 2/3 majority vote. 2) Furthermore, it requires a 3/5 majority vote to CHANGE THE RULES OF THE SENATE.]