Congressional debate is ready to commence on the Senate filibuster. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wanted the Senate to be the “anchor” of government, allowing time for bills to be debated and examined, or as George Washington coined, a place for bills to be “cooled” by the passions of the House of Representatives.
Some, however, charge that during the 111th Congress the filibuster was abused beyond the founders’ intent, and propose that it should therefore be eliminated. Others, apprehensive of total elimination, argue that it should be amended, so that the procedure is weakened enough to allow passage of more legislation; and still others maintain it should be left alone.
So, currently, what is the proper role for the filibuster? Was it abused in the recent session of Congress? And how would changing this procedure actually affect everyday Americans?
Listen to Heritage experts discuss some of the history of the filibuster and its proper role, here.
No need to change or weaken. The filibuster is very important and I'm sure it was abused in favor of the abusers. There needs to be dignified leadership that there wasn't in the 111th. There was much to contend with the 111th. Their childish, inept, insubordinate behavior. Nancy, Harry, Barney, Anthony Weiner etc, …
Pingback: Tweets that mention Podcast: Senate Filibuster | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com
Does no one not see the consistent pattern since Obama took over? From
Czars, to executive orders, to recess appointments (who could not be confirmed through Congress), to the Fairness Doctrien, Obama is attempting to shut down
free speech to anyone that does not agree with his ideology.
Keep the filibuster, but do it "Mr. Smith" style. If you want one, you have to keep talking…and talking…and talking.
My problem with it right now is that it is too easy — and a too-tempting tactic for lazy or petty politicians. It appears all a senator has to do is say "I'll filibuster" and the whole process stops.
This is like saying you will run a marathon and don't show up at the race — but you get a medal for completing it anyway. We are rewarding bad behavior here.
If a senator really believes there is something wrong with a bill, then he or she should literally put in the physical effort and "fight" it by talking and talking and talking about it. For hours on end.
If they are required to "put their money where their mouths are" on a filibuster, fewer senators will be inclined to do it. And for those who do, it will be an interesting test of their principles.
the filibuster is only a good idea when conservatives have the minority right? you guys are too much. Bobbie, don't hold our breath. if you think the 112th is any better because of conservative leadership your either intentionally ignorant or just confused.