With all the talk about Senate dysfunction and unprecedented filibuster use by the Republicans, I was wondering: is there a way to make the Senate a weaker body from the outset? I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the founders that well, but is it possible to make the Senate less able to block House legislation from the outset?
Weaker Senate in the first place?
- Thread starter MNP
- Start date
There is no way to do this and remain true to the concerns and intent of the Federalist writers of the Constutution. The very purpose of the Senate was to put a break on popular democracy and support the federalist notion that the USA was a federation of states, not a unitary democratic republic. Originally, US senators were not even popularly elected, but were appointed by each State's Legislature.
Also, there is nothing unprecedented at all in the threatened use of the filibuster today. It has been an accepted practice for a long time. It has been used by left and right to delay and forestall legislation. In the long term, it does more harm than good to the filibustering party and the causes they are supporting.
Also, there is nothing unprecedented at all in the threatened use of the filibuster today. It has been an accepted practice for a long time. It has been used by left and right to delay and forestall legislation. In the long term, it does more harm than good to the filibustering party and the causes they are supporting.
Philip
Donor
It is hardly unprecedented.
I don't see how you can accomplish a big state-small state compromise without it.
The current filibuster is entirely unprecedented, not only in occurrence (now, essentially, *all* bills are filibustered, which wasn't the case before), but in form. Before, when Senators were real men 
p), they had to actually speak throughout their filibuster. Now, just threatening to filibuster is enough to filibuster (sometimes called a procedural filibuster), and that is certainly unprecedented.
p), they had to actually speak throughout their filibuster. Now, just threatening to filibuster is enough to filibuster (sometimes called a procedural filibuster), and that is certainly unprecedented.I'm not really talking about the equal representation part of it though. In fact a lot of the procedures in the US Senate are decided by the Senate's own rules. So basically I'm asking for historical changes in Senate Procedures, which is well, pretty in the weeds.
It absolutely is.
Philip
Donor
Care to provide the methods behind the statistics presented in the graph?
Suppose 10 bill are before the Senate, and answer these questions:
- What if all 10 bills are filibustered and no one ever calls for vote on cloture because they realize it will never pass? How is that presented on your graph? It seems like it should be 0% since cloture is never invoked. Or is it 100% because all bills fail to make cloture?
- What if none of the bills are filibustered, but, for the sake of form, a cloture vote is invoked for each bill. Do you show that as 100%?
- Say, for example, someone calls for cloture 90 times (but the vote fails each time) on one filibustered bill while 9 bills pass through without any calls for cloture. Does that equate to 90% on your graph? 10%?
- What is the correlation between cloture votes and use of the filibuster? Your original post claims that the use of the filibuster is unprecedented, but you use a graph concerning cloture as evidence of that claim. You need to defend this connection.
Philip, I am not going to continue the discussion in this thread. It's inappropriate to do so in the Pre-1900 thread. The purpose of my thread was to discuss changes in early senate procedure and culture that would create smoother passage of legislation. I hoped the discussion would involve examining the psyches of the founders, political realities of the day, and changes over to time legislatively and historically. I'm sorry that I distracted the main purpose of the thread.
I wouldn't mind discussing the non-AH aspect privately such as by PM.
As to the original question, I think the major issue here is the conception of a group of federation of republics rather than a unitary state. Also it seems odd to me that the founders talked about individuals and the dangers of faction (but also governance by multiplicity of factions!) yet didn't seem to consider the rise of parliamentary parties. Is there a reason that they did so? Was it an ideological/philosophical one? How would they think about the issue differently? Could a future generation do so prior to the ACW?
I wouldn't mind discussing the non-AH aspect privately such as by PM.
As to the original question, I think the major issue here is the conception of a group of federation of republics rather than a unitary state. Also it seems odd to me that the founders talked about individuals and the dangers of faction (but also governance by multiplicity of factions!) yet didn't seem to consider the rise of parliamentary parties. Is there a reason that they did so? Was it an ideological/philosophical one? How would they think about the issue differently? Could a future generation do so prior to the ACW?
While it would have been possible to limit the Senators ability to draw out their Speeches, The Founder prefered long Speeches as oppossed the the following Short ones.
I Challage You, Tommorrow Morning, Field behind the Tavern, I'll bring the Pistols.
Mr President pro Term, Pleas inform the State of ????? that they need to appoint a new Senator.
I Challage You, Tommorrow Morning, Field behind the Tavern, I'll bring the Pistols.
Mr President pro Term, Pleas inform the State of ????? that they need to appoint a new Senator.
Do remember that the filibuster was used well within most posters' memories to keep down the worst Bush abuses and appointees. I rather wish it'd been used MORE, in fact - say, to cut down on gummint surveillance abilities in some bills and block bad Bush second term CIA and UN appointments.
Also, the founders were mostly aristocratic rather than democratic, making them more liable to trust the Senate for most things other than the money functions traditionally attached to lower houses in English systems.
Also, the founders were mostly aristocratic rather than democratic, making them more liable to trust the Senate for most things other than the money functions traditionally attached to lower houses in English systems.
Yes the use of the Filibuster in the current fashion is unprecedented, because in this case a whole CAUCUS (the party's whole membership) is threatening to filibuster not just a few. In past cases notably the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in most recent memory), it was lead by a few men or by members representing a region. While Dems under Bush threaten a filibuster, it wasn't to my knowledge the whole caucus saying no but rather select members like in the past
As a previous poster stated the Senate was created to give States' States' Rights, so as such the Senate in its current form is what the Founder's envisioned. It was not only a check on popular interests but also it guaranteed state interest was represented when this country was much more regionally focused than currently. Because of the advent of mass communications and the virtual death of regionalism the Senate has outlived it's usefullness.
It is worth noting that the Filibuster was not a part of the original Senate rules in 1789 and was added after a particularly contentious slavery debate during ,IIRC, 1800-1804. The filibuster is part of Senate rules and is voted in every session all there has to be is a move to remove it from the Senate rules and then you have no Filibuster.
I don't care for that option I find it neither productive nor useful. What happens the first time we pass Anti-Chinese legislation or what have you? I think having the option in your political backpocket makes legislation more negotiable and forces people to come to the table. I think the Filibuster if used properly to defeat a bad bill is ok but its current use is beyond the point of the original intention which was to protect a (at that time) Right of the states.