FILIBUSTER?

0 votes

What is a filibuster? Why are they permitted in the Senate but not the House? Can you do anything to stop one?

I have heard the practice of "talking a bill to death" in the Senate referred to as a filibuster. What exactly is a filibuster? Why do they happen only in the Senate? What ist the purpose of allowing them? Can one Senator actually stop the entire Senate through a filibuster or is there something that can be done to bring one to an end?

The word filibuster comes from the Spanish word filibusteros; a term used to describe pirates that plundered in the seventeenth century. In the United States, the word eventually became synonymous with rebels and insurrectionists, a perfect term to describe a technique used by rebellious senators looking for ways to hold up legislation.

A classic anecdote has Thomas Jefferson asking George Washington about the purpose of the Senate. Washington responded with a question, "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" "To cool it," Jefferson replied. To which Washington said; "Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it." The framers of the Constitution intended the Senate to cool legislation by being a more deliberative body than the House. It was smaller, members were older, Senators were elected for longer terms, and elections were staggered and decided by state legislatures.

The House of Representatives has a Rules Committee that places a limit on debate when a bill goes to the floor. The Senate has no such committee. As a result, a bill is informally scheduled to come up on the Senate floor where debate can be endless. A filibuster occurs when a Senator engaged in debate refuses to yield the floor and thus prevents a roll call vote from taking place. The image of a Senator standing his ground on the Senate floor is epitomized by Jimmy Stewart with his performance in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Filibusters provide a minority of Senators a way to make their voices heard.

Filibusters also give a tremendous amount of power to individual Senators. Senators have used the filibuster, or the threat to filibuster in order to maximize their leverage with the President or other Senators. In 1985, Oklahoma Senator David Boren held up Edwin Meese's confirmation vote as Reagan's Attorney General until Reagan agreed to sign an emergency farm relief bill.

South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest speech in the history of the Senate. During debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he spoke for a total of twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes. His stamina has served him well, at the age of ninety-seven, he is currently the oldest serving member in the United States Senate.

Filibustering has become much more common in recent years. Roughly two-thirds of all filibusters in the Senate's history have taken place in the last thirty years. Filibusters where frequently used to stop civil rights legislation from passing in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then however, filibusters have been employed to stall bills of all types. This has led some to argue that filibustering has been trivialized.

A filibuster can take place at several stages during the legislative process in the Senate. Before a bill is even introduced, a senator can place an anonymous hold on a bill through the majority or minority leaders. A hold is simply a threat to stage a filibuster if the bill comes up for a vote. A motion to bring up a bill can be filibustered. Amendments to a bill can be filibustered. Appointments to conference committees with House members to consider the bill can be filibustered. Conference committee reports on the bill can be filibustered.

How can a filibuster be stopped?
A filibuster can be stopped when the Senate invokes cloture. This can be an arduous task in and of itself. To invoke cloture, a Senator needs to do the following:

Wait two days after a filibuster begins.
Obtain sixteen signatures on a motion to invoke cloture.
Wait another two days before the Senate can vote on cloture.
Make sure that three-fifths of the Senate (sixty Senators) vote to end debate.

Obtaining cloture is not necessarily a guarantee that the filibuster will be over. Some Senators have discovered loopholes that can still impede the legislative process. In the spring of 1976, Senators James Allen (D, Alabama) and Roman Hruska (R, Nebraska) developed a way to "filibuster by amendment" on an antitrust bill. Under Senate rules, pending germane amendments can be considered after cloture has been invoked. Allen and Hruska simply ensured that numerous amendments were offered. Since each amendment requires a roll-call vote lasting fifteen minutes or more, the two senators were able to tie the Senate up. After seventy separate roll-call votes, it became clear that no end was in sight. The bill's sponsors finally agreed to support an amendment proposed by Allen and Hruska.

More

http://www.thisnation.com/question/037.html

.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Senate rules allow for a vote to end a filibuster nowadays.

What if the government was unable to sell more Treasury bills? Wouldn't they be forced to mint money?
Seems to me that if we want to take power away from the elite who benefit from the Federal government, then people need to stop holding and investing in T-bills and put wealth in their own bank. An investment in T-bills empowers the elitists controlling the Federal government. Remember T-bills are just paper, just like FRNs. Withdrawling our investment is their biggest fear. Holding onto T-bills locks up dollars as they say. I suggest investing in something other than T-bills such as your local economy, food, supplies, silver and gold. These items stimulate our economy and the individual is empowered. But, what the hell do I know?
grant

Senate rules allow for a vote to end a filibuster nowadays.

What if the government was unable to sell more Treasury bills? Wouldn't they be forced to mint money?
Seems to me that if we want to take power away from the elite who benefit from the Federal government, then people need to stop holding and investing in T-bills and put wealth in their own bank. An investment in T-bills empowers the elitists controlling the Federal government. Remember T-bills are just paper, just like FRNs. Withdrawling our investment is their biggest fear. Holding onto T-bills locks up dollars as they say. I suggest investing in something other than T-bills such as your local economy, food, supplies, silver and gold. These items stimulate our economy and the individual is empowered. But, what the hell do I know?
grant

Speaking of the Senate,......

Why do we even have one?
The house of Lords as I have heard it being called.
These guys cause more problems than do good.
I think Congress with our congressmen is fine enough.
I'm not saying Congressman/ statesmen are any better but having such a system only clouds true on intentions of you know what I mean!

"The real terrorist's are in this country and they are not planning to blow us up, but rather, take our money, our freedom, and our country."

__________________________________________________________
"The real terrorist's are in this country. They are not planning to blow us up,......... but rather, take our money, our freedom, and our country."

Here's Senate rules on filibustering dated 03/28/03

It looks like there are no rules to speak of. All depends on how many determined Senators there are. May be able to delay vote up to two weeks.

I say it's worth a try to see if those Senators who are opposed to the concept of this bailout would be willing to mount a filibuster.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf

The senate can end debate with enough votes.

It takes 3/5 ths of the senators present (60 if 100 are in attendance) to end debate.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

----

--

Does anyone know what would happen if

a Senator or two or three were to filibuster, thus halting a vote on the bailout?

This would give the House time to come up with an alternative bill and if the House were to pass the alternative bill and send it to the Senate for a vote; what would happen to the Senate bailout bill that they attached to already passed legislation?

Would Jim Bunning be able to do it?

I'll call and plant the seed.

They changed the rules

a few months ago over some other smokescreen legislation.

What are the

new rules?

What did they do? Where is

What did they do? Where is commentary on this?

This article does offer a

This article does offer a possible change in filibuster rules, but seems only involved with nominations to the courts, or possibly, other NOMINATION. It doesn't talk about just bills, and it doesn't say even for sure it passed. I do not think it would have bearing, however, if it did. IMO