Republican Obstructionists in the Senate play Filibuster Card

Gator

Gator

U of B and B Alumnus


Time for the Constitutional Option?



GOP blocks Senate debate on troop buildup
Click to expand...
Thwarted Democrats pledge to find another way to force Bush’s hand



WASHINGTON - Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they still would find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before the vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.



The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described the test vote as merely a "bump in the road" and added that GOP lawmakers "welcome the debate and are happy to have it.
Click to expand...



Full story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16995646/
 
This is very good. Senate GOP must stop Dems.

Btw, Dems used to do this when they were a minority too. It is a democratic right
 
Let's see, all that is required to prevent the President from sending more troops is an act of god or a new constitutional amendment, furthermore, Congress' actions have done nothing but show that the President can do whatever he wants and remind the American people that Congress has little to no effect on Iraq. The most they can do is cut all funding for the war, and then who ends up looking like an ass? Congress needs to stop with the meaningless gestures and actually do something for a change, like fix the budget.
 
NEWSFLASH Pot calls kettle black, film at eleven.

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000262.cfm

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/17/163742.shtml

www.nationalreview.com/york/york032803.asp

www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...v/~judiciary/testimony.cfm?id=744&wit_id=2042

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200511/ai_n15845800

www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/alito_01-27-06.html

www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/06/estrada/index.html

www.hyscience.com/archives/2005/04/louisville_rall.php

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601955.html

http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm...Detail&PressRelease_id=285&Month=11&Year=2003

www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/21/D8EKQLUO0.html

patterico.com/2005/10/09/

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4549884.stm

www.rushlimbaugh.com/.../real_recor...busters_blocked_anti_lynching_laws.guest.html

www.registerguard.com/news/2005/12/17/a1.patriot.1217.p1.php?section=nation_world

www.rotor.com/Default.aspx?tabid=510&newsid905=49379&
 
phoenix80 said:
Btw, Dems used to do this when they were a minority too. It is a democratic right
Click to expand...

Which was of course the point of my Post.
I'll add that there is zero (as in none) right granted in the United States Constitution for such an action.
 
Nowhere in the text of the Constitution is there a requirement for a simple majority for vote on
nominations – or for a vote at all. What the Constitution does say expressly2 is that the Senate holds
the sole power to make its rules, which certainly must include the rules governing debate on the
Senate floor. This interpretation is validated by 216 years of Senate consideration of nominations.
Click to expand...
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_527.pdf

A. The short answer is because there is nothing there to find: the Constitution does not contemplate the filibuster in any way, directly or indirectly. So, then, what is all this talk about the Framers, the Senate, the filibuster, and its relationship to the Constitution?

By way of definition, the filibuster is a delaying tactic that is a part of the rules of the Senate. It is a word that comes from the Spanish word for "freebooter," which means "pirate." The origin seems to be that a person who filibusters is plundering the time and focus of a deliberative body, like a legislature. Specifically, in the U.S. Senate, a filibuster is used by a single Senator or group of Senators to stop or delay action on a piece of legislation. It has long been the tradition of the Senate that debate may not be stopped unless those taking up the debate allow it to be stopped. In other words, once a Senator has the floor, he or she may continue to talk forever. This rule goes back to the very beginnings of the Senate.

The Constitution allows each house of Congress to set its own rules. Early on, both houses had unlimited debate provisions. The House of Representatives, however, as a much larger body, found this rule unworkable and rules to limit debate came into effect. The Senate, until recently, never created such a rule. The term for the use of unlimited debate as a legislative tactic became known as a filibuster in the 1850's. The first attack on the filibuster came in 1841, by no lesser a figure than Henry Clay. It survived, though, until 1917, when the Senate adopted a rule allowing a filibuster to be stopped by a two-thirds vote. Such a vote is known as "cloture." Cloture ended the ability of a single Senator to hold up Senate business, but since a two-thirds vote can be difficult to get, it certainly did not stop the filibuster.

In 1975, the two-thirds rule was changed to three-fifths. Today, the three-fifths rule allows cloture on the basis of the vote of sixty Senators. In 2005, the filibuster again came under attack when threats to filibuster judicial appointments prompted calls for a rule change specifically against filibusters on judicial appointments.

So the filibuster has it constitutional origins in the ability of each house of Congress to set its own rules. It has its origins in the framers in that they saw the Senate as a place where extended debate and discussion would have a cooling effect on the actions of the more "heated" House. And it has its origins in the concept ingrained in our political system that the rights of the minority must be protected from the force of the majority.
Click to expand...
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a7.html
 
Bulldogg. I do believe that is game, set, and match.

How could anyone reasonably now respond in the negative. Is there no end to your brilliance?

:rock:
 
Padre said:
Bulldogg. I do believe that is game, set, and match.

How could anyone reasonably now respond in the negative. Is there no end to your brilliance?

:rock:
Click to expand...

Reeeeelax Padre. Take it from one who lives in the United States of America, and is sworn to defend and follow the United States Constitution on such matters, why not worry about your own Nation and leave United States Constitutional Matters to those in America.

Note: While my response starts out close to your response http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/291870-post.html there, I did not view your work as Copyrighted in any way.
 
Many citizens of the free world are very interested and concerned with political and procedural matters in the US because the actions of the US have a vast direct and indirect impact on people the world over regardless of their geopolitcal eccentricities.
 
bulldogg said:
Many citizens of the free world are very interested and concerned with political and procedural matters in the US because the actions of the US have a vast direct and indirect impact on people the world over regardless of their geopolitcal eccentricities.
Click to expand...

Thank you Bulldogg I deleted my smarta*se comment because you summed it up far better than I.
 
I think you guys missed GATORS point entirely...


What Gator was saying was that a few scant months ago the Republicans threatened to change Senatorial rules because the Democrats were using the Filibuster in order to halt a Senatorial vote. Basically they couldn't get their way, so they tried to change the rules of them game...

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Its the GOP thats the minority and they are the ones that are using their power (which they are perfectly entitled to do) of filibuster in order to prevent a motion from being voted on.

And are the Democrats threatening to change the rules simply so they can pass their agenda?

Of course not. Thats the difference between a political party who respects our system of government and a bunch of fanatics who don't.
 
Last edited:
We guys however were much more interested in the claim (snicker snicker) that the filibuster was zero (as in none) as a right granted in the United States Constitution for such an action (chuckle chuckle).

I found US Constitutional Law and history fascinating when I took courses in them at Notre Dame, Indiana. And serving along side and helping Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan as my brothers did in Vietnam and my dad did in Normandy does give me and any other ally to the US some vested interest in US affairs and politics in addition to the reasons given in the superb answer given by Bulldogg above.
 
American Politics should be of no interest to those of us in other countries, except that when America itches the rest of the western world gets the rash.
 
Padre said:
We guys however were much more interested in the claim (snicker snicker) that the filibuster was zero (as in none) as a right granted in the United States Constitution for such an action (chuckle chuckle).

I found US Constitutional Law and history fascinating when I took courses in them at Notre Dame, Indiana. And serving along side and helping Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan as my brothers did in Vietnam and my dad did in Normandy does give me and any other ally to the US some vested interest in US affairs and politics in addition to the reasons given in the superb answer given by Bulldogg above.
Click to expand...

If it were a Right granted in the United States Constitution, it would take an Amendment to change such, which it does not, and I'll piont out that when the US Senate started its very first session in 1798 there was no such animal as the Filibuster, the Senate worked off the "to Move the Previous Question" rule, ending debate.
 
Gator said:
If it were a Right granted in the United States Constitution, it would take an Amendment to change such, which it does not, and I'll piont out that when the US Senate started its very first session in 1798 there was no such animal as the Filibuster, the Senate worked off the "to Move the Previous Question" rule, ending debate.
Click to expand...

However, the US Constitution does explicitly state that the Senate and the House make the rules for procedure. Since then the Senate and the House have rules which allow the fillibuster it is by extension of the authority an action sanctioned by the power of the Constitution.
 
bulldogg said:
However, the US Constitution does explicitly state that the Senate and the House make the rules for procedure. Since then the Senate and the House have rules which allow the fillibuster it is by extension of the authority an action sanctioned by the power of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Technically you are right. Its a senatorial procedure and senatorial procedures can be changed. But is it wise to do so merely to pass an agenda (either left or right wing)?

I think that would open Pandora's Box as the next time the opposition is in power (and there always is a next time) they will start changing things to suit THEIR agenda.

Pretty soon our system of government wouldn't remsemble much of anything.

The power of the minority (whether it be liberal or conservative) must be maintained in order to protect Democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top