“There have been more filibusters since 2006 than the total between 1920 and 1980,” notes New Mexico Senator Tom Udall. Udall was a guest on “Maddow” last night, where he explained his plan to change the Senate rules, known as “The Constitutional Option,” at the start of the new session of Congress on January 5. The Constitutional Option requires only a simple majority, 51 votes, to trigger a rule change. Maddow called it “the single most important thing that could be done to change Washington on a single day in the legislature.” The freshman Democrat outlined the specifics of his plan in a spiffy video released by his office last week.
I think he should shut down the government until they take away his power to shut down the government.
Seems to me, Mr Senator, that you could use the time used “obstructing” legislation to actually read the crap you folks introduce all the time. It sounds like you want to fast track everything instead of actually crafting laws designed to deal with our problems. Please spend time dealing with our trade laws, ridiculous tax rules, financial laws designed to screw the average citizen, forcing the sale of health insurance no one can afford, etc. You’ve got MUCH better things to do.
Why is Udall concerned about the Constitution now?
It’s not like he ever felt constrained by the lack of enumerated power or Constitutions restrictions on powers to make America into a liberal green utopia.
Anti filibuster rules won’t affect the “secret hold” and all the other provisions that allow individual Senators to extort their victims, willing and otherwise.
But lets focus: “something” needs to be done? So give majority rule a try. compromise I heard was to allow for filibuster but every few days lower the vote per cent required to stop the filibuster until it gets down to majority vote. That way, Jimmy Stewart can still make the passionate plea.
There are pro’s and con’s to every position. A SuperMajority vote can indeed be a way to slow change down. Its a kind of check and balance. Main problem is the Constitution was constructed without it in mind and the Checks and Balances was supposed to come from the House, Senate, President, Court divisions. that got screwed over by the TWO PARTY SYSTEM that also wasn’t not in mind in the constitution.
Another “solution” would be to vote Democrat regardless of other issues. Right now, the demonstrated corruptness of the Republican Party is so overt, such a response is only proper and patriotic. Deal with the Dumbocrats when they get as corrupt.
IIRC, the Democrats were just as happy to filibuster back in the Bush years. Still, the requirement that it be done Jimmy Stewart style rather than through secret ballot would be an improvement. Bernie Sanders’ recent filibuster against the budget compromise is a good example.
Oh great, now EVERY bullshit bill they write will get passed.
No thanks.
The party with the majority always thinks that the rules make things easier for them are a good idea.
Until they become the minority party.
And it will be that way until individual politicians start to think beyond the next election. (In other words, it’ll never happen.)
I say we go back to state appointed senators too, so maybe it will be less likely that whenever bright ideas for new programs get thrown around in Washington, the states won’t get left holding the bag for funding/implementing them.
#4–goldbug==your memory is as faulty as your ability to read or your currency in political news. Just get off the island?
@#8 Bobbo… http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/republican-filibusters-skyrocket/
There were filibusters during GWB terms by Democrats, plenty of them.
Why filibusters increased with Democratic control of Senate? – Because Democrats went far-far-far-Left in their legislation. Proof? – Catastrophic Dem’ loss in 11/2010 elections. If people didn’t like Rep’ filibusterings, voters would have punished them. Voters liked Rep’ filibusters, public opinion polls were always on their side while Dem’s tried endlessly to legislate against will of the people.
Do we need rule to kill filibuster – NO. We need it there to force both parties (when in power) to legislate in the middle. The only way to practically overcome filibuster is to have bi-partisan agreement on the legislation. Left or Right ideology must always be confronted by filibuster. Than the legislation will be done for the people not on the people (ex. health care …).
#9–duzyanal==you sure are dismal. You do know this is Christmas and not April Fools Day?
“You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.”
Pull your head out of your ass.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But to act like you deserve respect:
Recognize your first statement is contradicted by your second statement? First you imply Pukes have not GREATLY INCREASED/MISUSED the filibuster, they you go on to justify it. Which is it you nasty shriveled up POS for a human being?
Your definition of Far Left is what? Anything you don’t like? Yea Verily for “I” am Middle Left and Obama is far to the right of me. He’s not called BushtheMalignantRetard’s Third Term for nothing.
Voters “liked” the Pukes filibustering huh? Actually that is kinda funny. If the public’s approval rating of Congress is now at the Historic ((I say again HISTORIC)) LOW of 11%, then I’d say MY approval rating of the American Public is about the same.
I do agree with you, I don’t understand how the Pukes stay even a minority party as opposed to a has been party. The imbecility of the voting public is hard to plumb that way. People like you. Hard to believe there are so many of you.
Actually, on its own, your last paragraph even makes some sense. I agree large societal programs/supreme court cases “should not” pass on narrow margins.
Hmmmm. Seems I’m in a bit of a conundrum. Filibusters are “bad” when you have a spineless political party in opposition to those filibusters. Yes, Obama and the Dem’s really do need to INFORM THE PUBLIC just how bad the Pukes have been. They have raised party over country. Filibuster the START Treaty to get estate tax relief? So, when you add in a few more realities, the general potential reasonableness of the super majority vote requirement becomes much more problematic. More than one issue floating around.
Thanks for helping me see another “explanation” of the issue. You are however still a despicable person in support of a despicable party. Its at times like this I wish I was religious.
I’ve got mine, Screw you.
#9 dusanmal you say you want to force the parties into the middle? I doubt it…
The Democrats are just a little right of the line. If you want everything balanced, they need to move to the left and many of the Republicans move a long way towards more moderate opinions.
If both ‘sides’ were close to the middle, you would be close to emigrating.
But where would you go?
Throw the bums out.
Pick all of the names out of a list of citizens who are: of age, not currently in prison, not currently confined to a mental institution, have never served in the government, are not current government employees. (I wouldn’t even bar accountants.)
Four years later, thank them for doing their duty and send them packing. (Don’t let the door handle hit ya where the good lord split ya.)
That way you’ll really get a representative government.
That would also get rid of patronage, nepotism, dynasties like the Kennedy’s and the Bush’s ectera, lawyers and ex-lawyers pretending to represent us when they really don’t.
The last thing is to make all signatories to a bill be responsible for the use of whatever law come out of it.
“Unintended consequences”, such as billions paid out to some firm or other, or millions out out on the street in winter, would have some very visible consequences for the people who drafted it.
Basically this will give congress the ability to do whatever they want, with zero input from the people. At least until they’re up for election. But by then they’ll have finished the USA off, so it wont matter
The Senate is NOT broken.
The senators are broken.
I suspect he wants to change to a simple majority vote because that’s all the Dems can muster now.
Wanna make some useful changes? Make it illegal for any bill to have earmarks, amendments or exceed a couple hundred pages in length. Make it illegal to meet with a lobbyist in private and shoot those who do.
#7, yep, the 17th amendment was the worse amendment ever drafted (well next to the 18th anyway). It paved the way for an out of control federal government, that will be the downfall of the country at large.
The 17th should be repealed and senators should be selected by state legislators, that was the entire reason for the senate to begin with. The House or Representatives represent the people (and numbers are based on population) and the Senate represents the states (hence each state only gets 2).
But I don’t think thats ever going to happen. States pretty much slit their own throat with the amendments ratification, and now this federal monster will continue to grow until it kills us all.
Wasn’t this the Nuclear option when Republicans were in power and the Dems Filibuster them? It got carried over when the Dem came back into power. Now the Dems want to change it to a more friendly name Constitutional option.
I have a compromise. Just make them actually stand up and filibuster instead of just count to see if they have 60 votes.
Also, I agree that a repeal of the 17th amendment is in order. That way my state could unseat two really old men, although I still doubt that because of the farm subsidies the sitting Senators bring.
I have to laugh at any notion to reform or change how the US Congress works, that comes along. Years ago, there was a big stink raised about the President having a Line Item Veto power. So he could trim some of the pork that got attached to bills, approved by Congress. And after a whole lot of noise about getting this power approved, by the last Prez Bush no less. And once it was approved, it was almost immediately struck down by the Supreme Court as being Unconstitutional (they couldn’t have chimed in much earlier?). So the net results was a huge waste of time. And now there’s talk again of giving Obama the same veto power. Assuming he’d ever actually use it. And it wouldn’t fail to pass the Court’s smell test, again! These clowns get paid a lot of money to sit around not passing anything useful. But easily passing laws that clearing favor big business and the wealthy. Like the DMCA, NAFTA, and this latest Tax cut extension.
i’d rather get rid of the republicans and the democrats they are the cause of all the problems in america.. 😀
How can this reform the Senate?
Would this make them quit making shitty legislation on behalf of big multinational corporations?
Honestly how would repealing the 17th do any better than the way it stands now?
The positions would still be selected from pools of Plutocrats as they have the money to pass out to the state people to get them the job. And the special interests would only just move to the state capitols and do their work there.
It would seem the only winners in that would be people in state government hungry for extra loot in their pockets, more free jet rides and even more free meals and hookers.
The system is broken in every way. It must be eliminated and replaced with a totally new system.
You cannot make repairs to your house with broken, rusted and bent tools. Why do people insist on using them?
Cursor_
All the cowardly rationales by conservatives – here – for negating democracy.
Why not admit you oppose the concept, practice, opportunity for all to participate in making political decisions. It’s clear you only support some sort of elite rulers – especially since you think you somehow qualify for that elite, of course.
Hypocrites. You’re no different from the liars and crooks in Congress.
“I think he should shut down the government until they take away his power to shut down the government.”
These ‘elite’, corrupt politicians are always wanting to attack the constitution.
Where is the outrage? Might want to read a new book just out about martial law being declared when Americans finally take a stand. It’s so real cause it could happen as we see our freedoms being attacked. I recommend it.
http://www.booksbyoliver.com
It’s the power of congress that I now fear now that states have lost so much of their authority.
The Constitution does not say 60 votes for a bill to pass. Let the votes happen, but if there is going to be a filibuster, make the minority hold the floor, not the way it is now, where the majority must hold the floor indefinitely.
The term constitutional option comes from Republicans who were upset about Democrats’ filibustering judges. I can see the case that judges cannot be filibustered.
Given that Obama participated in these filibusters, Republicans should filibuster all his judges until they agree to eliminate the filibuster for judges.
Be careful what you ask for…you might get it!
Everyone hates political tactics when they’re used against THEM but love them when they use it against someone else? Lame duck session doing stuff? Bad if it’s Democrats, good if it’s Republicans impeaching Clinton. Both sides do this stuff.
I’m FOR a filibuster. It can be useful. But it’s LAZY Senators that made it not a REAL filibuster but a checkbox essentially. See the point is that they just have to SAY they’ll filibuster and we pretend they did and then we have to pretend it’s a 60 person block. BULLSHIT! If the Republicans (or Democrats) want to filibuster, then Senator Blah has to STAND UP AND TALK for 24 hour straight (re: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). If it’s THAT important, fine, you do it. But none of this Republican (and Dems will do it eventually too) bullshit of just filibustering EVERY SINGLE BILL by saying they “intend do”. BULLSHIT
Our f’ing government is a bunch of corrupt self serving money grubbing jerks. And we thought that corruption in America was a thing of the past. Think about it…. the huge reward that is being given to the bank managers… where do you think some of that money actually ends up?
http://agonist.org/don/20101219/do_what
If the Republicans manage to win a majority in the next election (not unlikely given the relative number of Dem seats up) they are going to ditch the filibuster in a heartbeat. They showed what an effective weapon it is for the minority and they will want none of that. Given Republican’s frequent use, they couldn’t complain if the Democrats did the same. The Dems ought to get a two year head start on the new reality. The Repubs will squeal like stuck pigs, but they won’t put the rule back if they get in power. Can anyone make a credible argument that this isn’t what’s likely to happen?
#28–Dr Wally==you challenge: “Can anyone make a credible argument that this isn’t what’s likely to happen?” /// I doubt there will be any changes. Congress Creeps like having individual power and you saw how much the “moderate” Pukes had when the Dems wanted their votes. When majority rules, the minority personal votes are not as often needed and the Congress Creeps feel unloved.
Add to that that Congress will do nothing as much as possible. No real voter backlash when doing nothing: “I was for this but it was filibustered and there was nothing I could do.” The fact that the Creep in Question did not vote to call the question is rarely spotlighted by our compliant media.
Its a close question. About 50/50. I’ll filibuster the question if you push me.
>then Senator Blah has to STAND UP AND TALK for 24 hour straight
Nope, that’s now how it works. It is the majority that has to hold the floor, not the filibustering group. Mr Smith goes to Washington is outdated.