Tregg C parker Government 457 Filibuster A filibuster is a procrastination tool that some legislators use in order to prevent an issue from being voted on. During a filibuster a legislator would give a prolonged speech in order to obstruct procedure on a matter in the legislature or debate floor. According to the article A Short History of the Filibuster the author Peter Carlson defines a filibuster as, “any device used by a minority to prevent a vote because presumably the majority would win” (Carlson, 60). A filibuster extends more than an unusually long speech sometimes they can last for hours,“ After talking nonstop for 10 hours and 35 minutes, Huey long informed his fellow senators that he wasn’t a bit tried. I would just as son stay here and go ten more hours” (Carlson, 58). The purpose of a filibuster is to ensure that the minority doesn’t lose the vote so someone in the minority group stalls with a speech Filibusters are used to stop many political issues form being vote on. They can range from a wide variety of issues; “Filibusters became common in the decades after the Civil War, with loquacious senators trying to kill bills …show more content…
ranging from issues from federal silver purchases to black voting rights” (Carlson, 61). Civil Rights have been the main subject that senators tend to use a filibuster for. According to the article From the Transformation of the US Senate the author Barbara Sinclair says, “No single issue has replaced civil rights as the primary target to the filibuster” (Sinclair,160). Many of the Filibuster between1955 and 1968 were related to voting on issues dealing with Civil Rights, “almost 60 percent were related to civil rights” (Sinclair, 160). Every time Congress tried to pass laws concerning black voting rights the bill was delayed, “For decades the house passed bills to outlaw discrimination and protect the right of black citizens to vote only to watch the bill killed by a filibuster of the senate” (Carlson, 60). Civil Rights filibusters aren’t as high anymore. The number of filibusters related to Civil Rights dropped down to 15 percent by 1986, however Civil Rights were still the most common filibusters because more senators started to employ this method of stall on many other issues within Congress. In the past the only way to stop a filibuster were restroom breaks, but Congress tried to find other solutions. Between 1917 and 1965 Congress attempted to find a way in order to stop filibusters, however the problem continued to persist. “The cloture rule provided a method for cutting off filibusters by a small group, but it was powerless against filibusters supported by more then a third of senators” (Carlson, 62). A cloture is used to end a filibuster. In 1957 Strom Thurmond of South Carolina gave the longest filibuster in American history. Thurmond gave an anti-civil rights monologue for over 24 hours. “He began talking at 8:54pm and he didn’t stop for the next 24 hours and 18 minutes” (Carlson, 62). Filibusters are still used today in Congress however they no longer take on one issue. Filibusters now range from every issues, “ No single issue has replaced civil rights as the primary target of filibuster… a wide range of issues provoked extended debate on the Senate floor” (Sinclair, 160). Filibusters now come from any minority group within Congress who don’t want a bill to be voted on. “The military draft, campaign financing, the genocide treaty, labor law reform, the dispute over a New Hampshire Senate seat, the sale of Contrail, and various nominations were among the measured filibusters” (Sinclair, 160). The 1950’s and 1960’s changed the type of people who used filibusters. Civil Rights were the main topic of issue during a filibuster, so only legislators concerned with Civil Rights did it. “It was commonly perceived as a tool of conservatives” (Sinclair, 160). After the Civil War things greatly changed, “Now senators of all ideological hues employ this device” (Sinclair, 160). Both conservatives and liberals use filibusters now, however in recent years liberals use them more frequency. “During the 1970’slierals conducted ten filibusters, conservatives thirty-two. In contras during the period of republican control of the senate in the 1980’s liberals conducted eighteen of twenty three” (Sinclair, 160). The Senate now uses filibusters in order to help kill bills that they don’t want to see be passed. Anytime there is a presidential appointee or bill to consider anyone with opposing views can give a threat of a filibuster, in hopes that the threat will be effective to stop the vote. “Democrats used the threat of filibusters to defeat several of Presidents George W Bush’s judicial nominations. Last year Republicans fought President Obama Health care reform bill with a filibuster that kept the Senate tied up for weeks” (Carlson, 64). In a sense fillisters are now scare tactics used by Senators. The senate work based upon “unanimous consent agreements” in order to be productive and run effectively the Senate has to quickly vote on certain issues, any delay can cause problems for Senators. Modern Senators use fillisters to force issues and bills to be defeated, because filibusters take too much time to sort through. “And the threat of a filibuster is frequently just as effective as a filibuster itself. The reason is simple. The Senate is vey busy and filibusters can take a long time to quash” (Carlson, 64). Filibusters aren’t simply a took used by Congress in order to kill a bill that a Congressman wants to see defeated, but rather a system of checks and balances.
Filibusters are used to ensure that the issue up for debate has been properly thought about and the effects it will have were considered. “We try not to filibuster just because it’s a bad bill… it has to be a matter of principle of morality. The senator will filibuster only if the issue is of paramount importance to this country, if it is something that would have lasting national signifance” (Sinclair, 161). The main legislative purpose of a filibuster is to ensure that Congress properly debate on a issue that can lasting effects on our country. “Issues of central importance to a member’s state were mentioned as justifying the use of extended debate” (Sinclair,
162).
(475 U.S. 469 [1986]), connects with the concept that Lynn proposes in the essay, Federalist No. 51: Is Liberty Guaranteed by Structures? Lynn suggests that the checks and balances system of the U.S. government has created a gridlock when keeping the government’s integrity (2011). Pemnaur can be used an as example to justify Lynn’s argument.
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
To summarize, the congressional committee system is a double-edged sword. It ensures that appropriate attention is given to each bill, but it can be easily corrupted by partisan influence. Surely, though, the advantages far outweigh the consequences. Committees are an integral part of the law-making process. They help to expedite the process of passing laws and ensure that only relevant issues are brought to the chambers of Congress for consideration.
The United State’s Constitution, the shortest written Constitution in the world, only has twenty-seven amendments, and now it is time to add another. The power of a presidential line-item veto was denied to the Clinton Administration in 1998, but with this last Congress being the least productive Congress ever, it is time to re-think the power distribution in the legislative process. In Congress, on average, only 10% of the bills proposed make their way through, and ever reach the President’s desk. In this modern day and age a bill, on average, is 3,105 words. When Congress was first created the idea was that each proposed legislation would be contained in one bill, now bills are comprised of various provisions. Which is why the power of the line-item veto would be beneficial to expand presidential authority. This line-item veto authority is the ability to cross out certain provisions while still being able to sign in to law the entire bill. This would be beneficial to the United States government, as an amendment that would allow the president to cut out unnecessary spending to in turn lower the national deficit. The United States government needs to pass an amendment to allow Presidents to use the line item veto.
In conclusion, even though some of the Congress processes and its structure seem to be made to slow things down and to reduce effectiveness, they exist to, as discussed in class, protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. After all, one of the main objectives of having a government is to create a balanced society, and to reduce the chances of having social convulsion and anarchy.
...framers wrote the Constitution to benefit themselves, it is irrelevant because it hasn't failed yet, and it has kept this country together for a long time and will continue to do so. However, the Constitution works very slowly and inefficiently at the cost of the American people. However, the fact that our government moves slowly is only a minor problem in the grand scheme of the world.
The U.S Constitution is recognized as a document that secures basic rights for citizens and structures the American national government. Before the Constitution, the states had all the power and the national government was very weak. Therefore, the creation of the Constitution was necessary to grant the national government power. Even though, the Constitution was signed in 1787, there was still debate in that the Constitution gave the national government too much power. Some of the individuals whom opposed the Constitution where Patrick Henry and George Mason. Patrick Henry became the leader of the opponents, because of his strong legal and rhetoric skills. On the other hand, George Mason was a patriot during the American Revolution, whom believed in the inalienable rights of the people. These two man were important figures that argued the dangers ratifying the Constitution would bring and that the Constitution would give too much power to the national government.
I find it interesting that the decision of whether or not a bill should be passed and made a law all boils down to which representative gives a better speech. Also, until I was in this position, I didn’t realize that it can be quite difficult to persuade people to agree with you. Overall I feel like it is a fairly productive way of running our government. I feel this way because representatives of each party are given the chance to state their opinions on each bill and describe how it would benefit or hurt our country in the future. This gives the rest of our country an understanding of the many different ways you can look at a certain bill and how it may affect us. One moment during the Mock Congress process that both surprised and frustrated me was when the democrat party filibustered. To filibuster means to delay tactics. The democrat party did this by prolonging their speeches with unimportant information and asking silly questions supporting their party’s representative. Although this did frustrate me, it was quite
Congressional committees are the part of the iron triangle that puts bills into the legislative process after they work with interest groups. A member of a congressional committee proposes a bill into the committee to be voted on. Members of congressional committees are members of the legislative branch, so when they propose the bill into their committee they work with the other members to get it passed. If one member doesn't like the bill they can try to get the bill maker to change it to his liking so he will vote for it. For example in my congressional committee, the judiciary committee, congressman Mclenan proposed a bill to give tax cuts to banks who approve a certain amount of low income people's loans. We all thought that other people that needed loans might be overlooked just because they were not low income people. We made him make guidelines for that issue, so we could vote for it.
Congress has an extremely vital role in our government and their responsibilities give the American people guidance in many ways. They are responsible for making laws, declaring war, and the approval or disapproval of the appointed officials proposed by the president, such as Supreme Court Justices ("The House Explained"). They are also given the duty of impeachment of the President of the United States if necessary.
Many students who are enrolled in FFA are already heading in the right direction to a bright future. FFA has many career benefits within the program. Any of the career development events (CDE’s) have something that will tie to a career in agriculture or to a career of other sorts. According to the National FFA Organization, “FFA members embrace concepts taught in agricultural science classrooms nationwide, build valuable skills through hands-on experiential learning and each year demonstrate their proficiency in competitions based on real-world agricultural skills”(“Statistics”). There are so many careers that tie into FFA, and many of them have to do with agriculture. Not every career that has to do with agriculture is about farming. There are so many different aspects of the agriculture industry that many people never think twice about. Most people are not interested in agriculture because they think it is just about farming or
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.
There are many ways that this movie relates to the political process. At the very start of the movie a senator dies. We therefore learn the process in which it takes to replace a senator. The next form of political process that was taught in the movie was when the young boy while escorting Mr. Smith to his seat explained the process of his first meeting in the senate and when he was allowed to speak his mind or present a new bill. The movie also explains how a bill becomes a law and the use of a filibuster and why it may be used.
Filibusters can be a very strong tool for the minority in the Senate. A Senator or his minority party can block full Senate consideration of a bill or a nomination by prolonged debate of the proposal. This is especially important to the Senate if there is only 50-59 Senators that are in favor of passing a bill. This is because of the rule of cloture. A filibuster can be ended in the Senate by a cloture vote which is 60 of the 100 Senators voting to end the filibuster and take the bill or nomination to a final vote. This is almost a check and balance sort of system within the Senate.
Even with multiple institutional barriers set in place to protect the republican form of government, the Framers’ system was ultimately a failure in protecting the rights of states and citizens and limiting the scope of government. Within 150 years, far-reaching legislation like the New Deal was being passed. John Dewey points out the failure of the ideas of the Framers saying, “The history of the last one hundred years is the history of non-fulfillment of their predictions.”4 It is especially evident today where factions are at war, bureaucratic sprawl is rampant, and judicial activism continues to increase. The Framers underestimated the influence of power, especially when one believes they are doing good through their use of power. Jonathan