Thoughts on the Filibuster, the Nuclear Option, and Other Topics

1.1K

•

Earlier, and I were chatting about the original intent of the Framers when it came to requiring a super-majority vote to pass legislation or approve presidential appointments. I wasn't certain of their intent, so I decided I'd look into it when I had a chance.

As I told Titus, it seems to me, after careful reading of the source material and supporting documents, that they intended for each new session of Congress to be able to legislate as they saw fit. They only require a 2/3 majority in specific cases:

Article 1, Section 3 - A 2/3 majority is required in the Senate to convict in an impeachment case.
Article 1, Section 5 - It's required in both houses in order to expel a member of that house.
Article 1, Section 7- It's required of both houses to override a veto of a law, or a law sent back to Congress by the President with objections.
Article 2, Section 2 - A 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to approve (or officially postpone approval) of treaties.
Article 5 - A 2/3 majority of both houses is required to propose amendments to the Constitution.

That's it. That's all I found.

The filibuster is part of the Senate Rules, and the Senate gets to decide their own rules without oversight from another branch of government. To filibuster, a Senator must be recognized to speak, and then must continue to speak without significant pause. Once they end the filibuster someone else can speak (if recognized) or a motion of cloture can me made. To invoke cloture the Senate must approve a motion signed by at east 16 Senators by a 3/5 vote (not 2/3). If cloture is approved, deliberation must end after no more than 30 additional hours, unless another cloture motion to extend is approved.

Reading through the Federalist Papers, I found where both Madison and Hamilton were in favor of super-majorities in only limited, specific cases. They wanted to ensure that the important things (outlined above) were protected from frivolous interests. They also intended the Senate and House of Representatives to be elected differently, and the current popular vote of both houses destroys that balance. That's a key issue now, because the States no longer have any representation in Congress. It used to be that a Senator could be recalled by the state legislature for voting against their will. That no longer happens.

All that said, the argument against ending the Senate filibuster is actually against the original intent of the Framers and should be considered in that light. Yes, the Democrats will take advantage of the lack of a filibuster when they get back in charge, but they will eventually get back in charge anyway. This is the Republican party's opportunity to codify into legislation rules that are currently only in place because of Executive Orders.

Will every piece of legislation be good for the country? I sincerely doubt it. I'm just pointing out the historical context in favor of eliminating the filibuster. Personally I'd like to make it harder for Congress to pass laws, because they pass too damned many of them, but that's a topic for another day.

Thoughts and comments are welcome. What did I miss? What did I get wrong?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Earlier, @Titus_of_Voat and I were chatting about the original intent of the Framers when it came to requiring a super-majority vote to pass legislation or approve presidential appointments. [See here.](https://poal.co/s/Twitchy/785395) I wasn't certain of their intent, so I decided I'd look into it when I had a chance. As I told Titus, it seems to me, after careful reading of the source material and supporting documents, that they intended for each new session of Congress to be able to legislate as they saw fit. They only require a 2/3 majority in specific cases: * Article 1, Section 3 - A 2/3 majority is required in the Senate to convict in an impeachment case. * Article 1, Section 5 - It's required in both houses in order to expel a member of that house. * Article 1, Section 7- It's required of both houses to override a veto of a law, or a law sent back to Congress by the President with objections. * Article 2, Section 2 - A 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to approve (or officially postpone approval) of treaties. * Article 5 - A 2/3 majority of both houses is required to propose amendments to the Constitution. That's it. That's all I found. The filibuster is part of the Senate Rules, and ***the Senate gets to decide their own rules*** without oversight from another branch of government. To filibuster, a Senator must be recognized to speak, and then must continue to speak without significant pause. Once they end the filibuster someone else can speak (if recognized) or a motion of cloture can me made. To invoke cloture the Senate must approve a motion signed by at east 16 Senators by a 3/5 vote (not 2/3). If cloture is approved, deliberation must end after no more than 30 additional hours, unless another cloture motion to extend is approved. Reading through the Federalist Papers, I found where both Madison and Hamilton were in favor of super-majorities in only limited, specific cases. They wanted to ensure that the important things (outlined above) were protected from frivolous interests. They also intended the Senate and House of Representatives to be elected differently, and the current popular vote of both houses destroys that balance. That's a **key issue** now, because the States no longer have any representation in Congress. It used to be that a Senator could be recalled by the state legislature for voting against their will. That no longer happens. All that said, the argument against ending the Senate filibuster is actually *against the original intent of the Framers* and should be considered in that light. Yes, the Democrats will take advantage of the lack of a filibuster when they get back in charge, but they will eventually get back in charge anyway. This is the Republican party's opportunity to codify into legislation rules that are currently only in place because of Executive Orders. Will every piece of legislation be good for the country? I sincerely doubt it. I'm just pointing out the historical context in favor of eliminating the filibuster. Personally I'd like to make it harder for Congress to pass laws, because they pass ***too damned many of them,*** but that's a topic for another day. Thoughts and comments are welcome. What did I miss? What did I get wrong? Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[–] • 1 pt

What happens when the left takes majority and packs scotus and just 51%’s tranny and faggot legislation?

[–] • 0 pt

That's exactly what happens. The 'right' does what they want, then the left comes in and undoes it. The left does what they want, then the right comes in and undoes it. It will just be a little bit harder for each side of the shekel to do what they want to do.

Or leave it like it is and make it hard to have a yo-yo legislative system. Where the benifit of every 4-8’years everything is undone?

Sounds asinine to me.

Again, the system was not designed for the federal government be the leviathan it has become. It would matter a lot less if the feds were still constrained by the Constitution.

Load more (1 reply)

The fact that they required a 2/3 majority to override a veto shows they put quite a significance on that level of majority. This furthers my belief that a simply majority should only be required to pass legislation, not the 2/3s currently put into place by senate rules. It's like the senate wants gridlock. No wonder congress continually scores so low in approval ratings.

Thanks for doing the leg work on this.

It was a very interesting intellectual exercise. I had to dust off a few references and read through documents I haven't read in a while. I can't say I'm massively in favor of the idea, but I completely understand them doing it and it is 100% within their purview to do.

The only ‘nuclear option’ is a Minuteman III.