Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on filibuster
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on filibuster
This research paper will be about the filibuster on what is and the effects in the congress. This paper will be about examining the filibuster and how it affects the ability of congress to do its job. So what is the filibuster? According to the book "Congress and its member," the filibuster is "the right of extended debate is unique to the senate. Any senator or group of senators can talk continually in the hope of delaying, modifying or defeating legislation"(Davison, 236). In other words, the filibuster is a key for senators who do not wish for a legislation to pass or for it to be "fixed". Furthermore, the filibuster does not have a specific time for it to finish it can take long for it to be "effective". In the book of Davison is stated that "Senators complain about the frequent use of filibuster threats and cloture attempts. In the past, filibuster generally occurred on issues of great …show more content…
national importance. Today, they occur on a wide range of less momentous topics". (Davison, 236). For us to have an imagination of why the senators are not happy with the "overuse" of the filibuster, thanks to "No Labels" is that since 1917 the "filibuster has been used over 1,300" (No Labels.org).
Further with a record in 2009 of "67 filibusters in the first half of the 111th Congress double the number that occurred in the entire 20-year period between 1950 and 1969" (Garret Epps, 2012). Which in other words the use of the filibuster has been abused for benefits of each party that are not really "important" in terms of comparison of a national matter and have been doubled in recent years. A little of the history of the filibuster is that we already know that the filibuster in early years was that basically everyone could filibuster and have an unlimited debate on a legislation the party did not want to pass, even though is that party knew they will still lose. The evolution of the filibuster has been big in its expansion as starting with a new rule in 1917 that "senator adopted Rule 22, at the arguing of the President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a
debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as the cloture" (Filibuster History). Which Cloture was basically to end the long debates that affect the senator job however that did not mean that the filibuster could not be used by the senators to appear a bill in which they wanted to debate. Another fact of the evolution of the filibuster is that "over the next five-decade, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote." (Filibuster History). Creating for the Senate to balance the votes in 1975 which in order of a two-thirds it was now "60" over the 100 senators. An example of how the filibuster is used and one that many people know is the filibuster of Huey Long. His filibuster was on 1935 "his goals was to force the Senate's Democratic leadership to retain a provision, opposed by President Franklin Roosevelt, requiring Senate confirmation for the National Recovery Administration's (NRA) senior employees. (Filibuster History). Basically, Ling goal spent over 16 hours becoming top 5 of the senator with the longest debate in order to "to prevent his political enemies in Louisiana from obtaining lucrative NRA jobs" (Filibuster History). His debate was that the programs created were all long gone and not improved; however, his proposal ended up being defeated as some senators thought his propositions were violating the Bill of Rights. Other senators have a known filibuster not only Long is famous because of his filibuster also Wayne Morse is known and has a nickname given by his admirers as the "Tiger of the Senate". when it comes to the reform of the filibuster in 2013 the books of Congress Reconsidered states argues that this reform is what to make the senator do its job better as they state "a central theme of this reform is reducing the time lags (italics) built into the senate cloture rule instead of trying to reduce the number of votes required to end debate. For many executive and judicial nominations, the critical question is not whether there are enough votes to overcome a filibuster but whether it is worth the required amount of Senate floor time to do so". (Dodd, 322) By this is sharing that the senate is having difficulties as senators often use the filibuster and what it does is affecting their job. In result of this, that’s why in the 113th Congress Harry Reid showed his discomfort by threatened to "go nuclear". So what nuclear option means? "nuclear option does not really have a definition, however, Analytic Betsy Palmer in her "CRS Report for congress" stated that the "point of using such an option is to achieve a goal by mean lying outside the Senate's normal rules of procedure, it would be impossible to list all the different permutations such maneuvers could encompass. (Palmer, 1) In which he later negotiate with Mitch McConnell to set new reform those in they included "Two alternative agenda- setting methods: (a) a filibuster-proof, simple-majority motion to proceed to a bill, provided the minority party has the unconstrained ability to offer two amendments,* and (b) a shortened cloture process on a motion to process if the cloture petition signed by the minority leader and seven minority party member."(Dodd, 322) The main topic in here it was to try and pass a legislation with "knowledge" in a good time of period that beneficiates both parties in term of them doing their job instead of getting affected. In a resume of this issue later on in July 2013, the Democrats wanted to use the "nuclear option" which it was explained before, their issue it was they wanted to use it "unless there were real changes in the nomination process". (Dodd, 323) Therefore this created that McConnell agreed to a retreat which allowed "votes on Corday’s nomination for the secretary of labor and two new NLRB board members, and nominations for the secretary of labor and director of the Environmental Protection Agency"(Dodd, 323). This basically created a power for the Democrat to dominate the Republican to "achieve" their moves. As we know the filibuster is a "major key" for the senators to use when it comes to preventing a legislation to pass if their party is basically minority to obtain certain powers that could get them to defeat a legislation not wanted. But the issue in here what does the experts think about the use of the filibuster, what are their opinions towards it. A good example is Mark Mellman in his article where he explains that the filibuster is not the same as he goes towards stating that the "filibuster has been used by both parties, the current crop of Senate Republicans has practiced filibuster abuse at unprecedented levels" (Mark Mellan). His discomfort towards the filibuster is that the use of it hasn’t been "properly" or intelligent in some other ways which are creating the Congress to lose the respect of the citizens. As he states "When probed, however, voters say they blame the members personally, not the system. Public opinion on the filibuster itself appears malleable."(Mark Mellan) In other words, the filibuster was dividing the relationship between congress and citizens as some might think that the filibuster is protecting the minority but others think is oppressing and making it impossible for a legislation to be passed at a "higher level" as this is somewhat decreasing the improvement of the country. In Concluding with this opinion of Mellan states that he concludes that “attitude toward filibuster stem from both an enduring value preference and a grant of political expenditure to the side you consider "right". (Mark Mellan) With is we always are going to get divided as citizens because we all never going to agree towards one side, however, many citizens from both sides are showing discomfort that the filibuster is not running the quality of the congress but the people running towards their own wants. In conclusion, the filibuster is a good topic to learn it gives us an outlook to see what the parties search for while passing a bill? Not only we learned about the filibuster and a side history of how it started but we also had the chance to see how a cloture works, and how experts and public citizens think that the filibuster is running the quality of the Congress as theme member only find "one" reason to start a filibuster. Closing with this we learned that filibuster is very tedious and it takes a lot of concentration as we just learned the filibuster is certain power given to the minorities to debate over a legislation that goes against their beliefs. The overall filibuster is a good topic as we started from its originality and we saw the difference between then and now.
(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
Media plays an important role in politics. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington illustrates this. In the movie the newspaper was controlled by Taylor and his political machine. Due to this the newspaper wrote negative things about Smith and tarnishing his reputation in Washington. He was frustrated because the newspaper made him look like a joke and people in Washington believed it. This also influences passing his bill in the senate. Saunders decided that Smith should call for a filibuster which is talking about the bill and try to influence votes. The newscaster was not accurate with his description of a filibuster because he thinks it just blocks a vote. Saunders was not completely accurate because he talks about passing through the senate but it also has to pass through House of Representatives.
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.
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 the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
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
... middle of paper ... ... What hinders the capabilities of Congress is that minorities and factions exist: dissent takes place, not disagreements. Verbal brawls take place rather than actual argumentation, and that is what kills democracy.
Contrasts in the lawmaking methodology utilized as a part of the House and Senate reflect the distinctive size of the two chambers and individual terms of its parts. In the House, the dominant part gathering is inflexibly in control, stacking advisory groups with lion 's share party parts, and utilizing principles to seek after enactment supported by its parts. In the Senate, singular parts are better ready to hold up the procedure, which prompts lower similarity costs, however higher exchange costs. The complication of the lawmaking procedure gives rivals different chances to murder a bill, making a solid predisposition for the present state of affairs.
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.
Today, there is a major issue about Parliament related to Senate. The Senate usually examine bills to make sure that they are the most benefitting choice. They are also in charge of protecting the rights and interests of Canadians. As a result, Senate can be referred as a "sober second thought." However, a large number of Canadians disagree this and think that Senate should be abolished. Certainly, Senate is the useless system which rather affects society in a negative way. This is because the Senate costs lots of money, it is unfair system and the Senators do not perform any significant actions.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
The filibuster has come very far in its origin. The tern filibuster originally was someone that went around reeking havoc on people, most commonly pirates. In the middle of the nineteenth century many of these groups of people organized in the U.S. and went into Central America and the West Indies and started revolutions. These people became known in English as filibusters which was derived from the Spanish filibustero. In the early nineteenth century a senator named John Randolph from Virginia got in the habit of making long speeches on the Senate floor. The Senators soon got fed up with these long and irrelevant speeches and voted to give all right to the presiding officer to deal with such problems. This is when it gets interesting because in 1872 Schuyler Colfax, the Vice President, ruled that "under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senate considers pertinent to the pending issue". This tactic soon became widely used in the Senate and was compared to military adventurers, or filibusterers. People began to say that a Senator was filibustering.(An Illustrated Approach)
When many people hear the words the Senate and the House of Representative they might think of Congress. They do not truly go into depth of what those two departments mean, and they do not understand how vital they are to our own government. Congress is part of the Legislative Branch and is a bicameral legislature. Which means that is a legislature that is separated into two houses, and in that case is the House of Representatives and the Senate. Many know the words "The Senate" and "The House of Representatives" but they do not truly know what those words entail, many do not know the contrast and comparisons of the Senate and the House of Representatives.