on the filibuster

[Danzig]

was perusing slate this evening....came upon this article, that i thought would do well to be linked here, considering all the recent arguing about whether it should remain as a tool. i hope those so vehemently against the tactic read the article.

http://www.slate.com/id/2244060/

[miraja2]

I am certainly sympathetic to arguments such as:

"When Democrats have filibustered Republicans in recent years, they have very often represented more Americans than the Republican majority; the same is almost never true in reverse."

But, on the whole, I still wish the filibuster would be eliminated completely. Arguing that the undemocratic filibuster is a good thing because it can sometimes act to correct the undemocratic nature of the Senate strikes me as something of a strained argument.

[Riot]

I really like the proposals for a decreasing amount of votes necessary for cloture over time. That means fillibuster can occur, but limits the neverending obstructionism.

I thought the article good, but the argument flawed. The Senate isn't supposed to represent majority population rule. Two votes per state, regardless of population.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

53.4% of voters wanted Obama. All along, he said he was going to have this type of health care plan. The majority of voters backed a man who was for this. Fact is that the Filibuster crap has allowed 36% of the population's Senators to fk this man. You would think the clarity on how pathetic this is would be crystal clear, but no. Americans just can't accept the fact this is a piece of crap rule in a biased pool. I always told you it was about this much (64-65%) that you are making this man get. I finally did the adding up, and they're beating him with 36% of the population's senators. I am not making this up. You're asking him to get the senators representing a full 65% of the population. He couldn't do it. You wonder why there is gridlock? Right here, baby. This is a cancer. It's allowed the media, P.T.A. Sarah, and pompous people everywhere to pick apart a man who got 64% of the population's senators behind him. I can't tell ya just how stupid Americans are to make a President bow to 36% of the population. It's absurd. Keep putting up apologists writing articles to lead Americans astray. They deserve gridlock. They don't deserve a leader. They've got exactly what their rule book allows a leader to get done (nothing.) They get mad, but they won't give their leader the power to do stuff (only responsibility for the blame.) People can keep blaming politicians all they want, but if they don't change the basic design, they'll only get more gridlock. I promise you that.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

I thought the article good, but the argument flawed. The Senate isn't supposed to represent majority population rule. Two votes per state, regardless of population.

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike. The fact we don't seem to think it's wrong just shows how elitist we are as a society. That's a dog-waste design. It's no wonder it's failing. You get what you deserve for putting up with it. It's wrong. I don't care how much they try to brainwash you people into buying into it. It's wrong. It's never gunna be moral to give Americans in certain parts of America more say than other Americans. It's right in front of you. It's dead wrong. Simply an immoral design, because you own it, you're gunna overlook it. We have an immoral design, and we wonder why it's not working. When somethings not fair, then people don't respect it, and it won't work. It's sooooooo much more just to have 36% stop this guy. Founding Fathers just so fkn brilliant, huh.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike. The fact we don't seem to think it's wrong just shows how elitist we are as a society. That's a dog-waste design. It's no wonder it's failing. You get what you deserve for putting up with it. It's wrong. I don't care how much they try to brainwash you people into buying into it. It's wrong. It's never gunna be moral to give Americans in certain parts of America more say than other Americans. It's right in front of you. It's dead wrong. Simply an immoral design, because you own it, you're gunna overlook it. We have an immoral design, and we wonder why it's not working. When somethings not fair, then people don't respect it, and it won't work. It's sooooooo much more just to have 36% stop this guy. Founding Fathers just so fkn brilliant, huh.

I actually like gridlock because I don't like either party. I think the Republicans are probably the lesser of two evils but it's a close call.

I wouldn't want either party to be able to do whatever they want to do. Even if the Republicans had a simple majority, I wouldn't want them to be able to pass whatever legislation they like. I wouldn't trust them to do the right thing.

Needing 60 votes to get anything done is a good thing. It forces compromise. I hope that neither party ever has 60 seats in the Senate. I wouldn't want either party to have full control.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I actually like gridlock because I don't like either party. I think the Republicans are probably the lesser of two evils but it's a close call.

I wouldn't want either party to be able to do whatever they want to do. Even if the Republicans had a simple majority, I wouldn't want them to be able to pass whatever legislation they like. I wouldn't trust them to do the right thing.

Needing 60 votes to get anything done is a good thing. It forces compromise. I hope that neither party ever has 60 seats in the Senate. I wouldn't want either party to have full control.

Totally agree with this post.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike. The fact we don't seem to think it's wrong just shows how elitist we are as a society. That's a dog-waste design. It's no wonder it's failing. You get what you deserve for putting up with it. It's wrong. I don't care how much they try to brainwash you people into buying into it. It's wrong. It's never gunna be moral to give Americans in certain parts of America more say than other Americans. It's right in front of you. It's dead wrong. Simply an immoral design, because you own it, you're gunna overlook it. We have an immoral design, and we wonder why it's not working. When somethings not fair, then people don't respect it, and it won't work. It's sooooooo much more just to have 36% stop this guy. Founding Fathers just so fkn brilliant, huh.

Naturally if you knew of or understood history you would have some sense of why the system was designed as it is. Seemingly in your perfect world we would just have an opinion poll that dictated our laws. Maybe the political version of Sportsnation? Because that show is working out so well...

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Naturally if you knew of or understood history you would have some sense of why the system was designed as it is. Seemingly in your perfect world we would just have an opinion poll that dictated our laws. Maybe the political version of Sportsnation? Because that show is working out so well...

I agree. Suggest to SCUDS that he review the history of why the Constitution sets up this bicameral system for the legislative body.

As we all might remember from history class, the House of Representatives is the body set up to implement representation in a way proportional to the population in each state. This would obviously give the largest states at any time most of the power on legislative issues. Had this been the only legislature, the smaller states would not have signed the Constitution.

The Senate has 2 votes per state because the view that competes with population-based representation is one based on each state's sovreignty. All states are considered to have the same level of sovreignty -- especially when drafting the Constitution where unanimous approval was needed.

These two different approaches, with both being vital to getting legislation through, is intended to give both types of states -- large and small, a place where they are strong enough to influence legislation. It is designed to maximize stability and provide checks and balances within the legislative branch. This is in addition to the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's immoral. They can call it what they want, but they aren't treating Americans alike.

Congress is where Americans are represented by their numbers. The Senate represents "the States", not those states' populations.

That said, I agree with all you said about the Dems being pussies. The only one who has remotely stood up lately is the President, and the Dems are not even following his lead. The Dems have the mandate, and they are blowing it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Congress is where Americans are represented by their numbers. The Senate represents "the States", not those states' populations.

That said, I agree with all you said about the Dems being pussies. The only one who has remotely stood up lately is the President, and the Dems are not even following his lead. The Dems have the mandate, and they are blowing it.

Congress is both the House and the Senate. The House is the one based on population, and the Senate based upon equal shares of U.S. sovreignty -- which reduces to 2 votes per state.

The Dems do not have a mandate. They were the "not Bush" party when Bush was no longer running, and the emotional population put them in the majority. In two years time, most of the people who voted Democratic have realized that the Dem's agenda sucks, at least for the working people who pay the tax dollars that Congress spends. They will rightfully and soundly be pounded at the polls in November.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The Dems do not have a mandate.

Well, actually, yes, they do indeed have the electoral mandate. In the Executive Branch, in the Congress [House of Reps to make Joey happy], in the Senate.

I just posted today's Rasmussen poll over in your other thread (your poll thread) that shows the Dems - for today at least - clearly in the lead.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, actually, yes, they do indeed have the electoral mandate. In the Executive Branch, in the Congress [House of Reps to make Joey happy], in the Senate.

I just posted today's Rasmussen poll over in your other thread (your poll thread) that shows the Dems - for today at least - clearly in the lead.

Except the Dems clearly dont lead the polls when the Tea partyers and GOP are added together. Since Palin "heads" the tea Partiers and you, Bob and the Today show say shes the face of the GOP I want to hear the reasoning on how the Dems clearly are in the lead.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

That said, I agree with all you said about the Dems being pussies. The only one who has remotely stood up lately is the President, and the Dems are not even following his lead. The Dems have the mandate, and they are blowing it.

From who? Obama?

The Dems are simply following the lead of their constituents, you know the people they represent. Something to do with JOBS lol

Unlike you, few treat Obama as their Messiah and thank the Lord for that. As I've said before I hope this Pres continues to do what he wants and not what the citizens want. I really just can't wait to see what magnificence he shows in the private sector.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Except the Dems clearly dont lead the polls when the Tea partyers and GOP are added together. Since Palin "heads" the tea Partiers and you, Bob and the Today show say shes the face of the GOP I want to hear the reasoning on how the Dems clearly are in the lead.

From what I see the Tea Partiers and the GOP are not going to vote together (witness what has happened already in elections where there are candidates from both Baggers and GOP running - NY Congress, the Dem won, hello!); that the part of the GOP that supports Baggers is moving away from Baggers and back to the GOP; and that Independents are moving away from the GOP and Baggers.

[Riot]

From who? Obama?[/quote]

Naw, the obvious electoral majority the Dems hold: the Presidency, and Congress.

The Dems are simply following the lead of their constituents, you know the people they represent. Something to do with JOBS lol

In my view, it's generally good when pols follow what their constituents elected them to do. In fact, even the GOP constituents want jobs, no?

Unlike you, few treat Obama as their Messiah and thank the Lord for that.

You and reality seem to have a strange disconnect. I've never treated Obama like a Messiah, and I've certainly written here plenty of what I don't like about him.

As I've said before I hope this Pres continues to do what he wants and not what the citizens want. I really just can't wait to see what magnificence he shows in the private sector.

The citizens "want" exactly what he is doing. He's never had more support.

Tax cuts for "the private sector" (business) should make you pretty happy, I'd think.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

From who? Obama?

The citizens "want" exactly what he is doing. He's never had more support.

Tax cuts for "the private sector" (business) should make you pretty happy, I'd think.[/quote]

In spite of the polls. You are the dining room table Barney Frank was talking about arguing with. Once again a poll titled "Obama Hits Lowest Approval Mark" dated TODAY!!!!

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal..._hits_lowe.php

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I agree. Suggest to SCUDS that he review the history of why the Constitution sets up this bicameral system for the legislative body.

As we all might remember from history class, the House of Representatives is the body set up to implement representation in a way proportional to the population in each state. This would obviously give the largest states at any time most of the power on legislative issues. Had this been the only legislature, the smaller states would not have signed the Constitution.

The Senate has 2 votes per state because the view that competes with population-based representation is one based on each state's sovreignty. All states are considered to have the same level of sovreignty -- especially when drafting the Constitution where unanimous approval was needed.

These two different approaches, with both being vital to getting legislation through, is intended to give both types of states -- large and small, a place where they are strong enough to influence legislation. It is designed to maximize stability and provide checks and balances within the legislative branch. This is in addition to the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.

Actually unanimous approval was not needed in either the convention (where three delegates refused to sign the finished document) or in the ratification process. Only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become operative (see Article VII).

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I actually like gridlock because I don't like either party. I think the Republicans are probably the lesser of two evils but it's a close call.

me too, I feel great when there's gridlock.

It's when they're getting things done that I really get concerned.

like we sometimes say about a horse, "they've done enough"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The citizens "want" exactly what he is doing. He's never had more support.

Tax cuts for "the private sector" (business) should make you pretty happy, I'd think.

In spite of the polls. You are the dining room table Barney Frank was talking about arguing with. Once again a poll titled "Obama Hits Lowest Approval Mark" dated TODAY!!!!

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal..._hits_lowe.php[/quote]

www.rasmussenreports.com