In The Federalist Papers: No. 22, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the supermajority rule, a filibuster requirement, would lead to "tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue" and "contemptible compromises of the public good."
With the arrival of a Democratic-majority Senate, many are calling on Democratic Senators to eliminate the filibuster, a Senate rule that requires a supermajority (two-thirds) vote rather than just a majority (more than half) vote to pass most bills. The filibuster protects each Senator's right to speak as long as necessary on any issue, with the debate on an issue only ending when the Senate reaches an agreement through a two-thirds majority vote. but It has since become a way to block legislation as a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. It has been used by both parties and has defeated bills on African American suffrage, federal anti-lynching laws, climate change, gun control, immigration, and more. While it has been used by both parties, the filibuster favors the conservative ideology as it functions as a legislation blocker and therefore preserves the status quo, which aligns with conservative action.
Those who wish to abolish the filibuster, including President Obama and many liberal-leaning Senators, claim that it is a necessary action to take in order to pass Democratic legislation, for example the necessary legislation that makes voting more accessible to all. Others Democratic Senators who are skeptical of eliminating it indicate that they may consider it if Republicans start rejecting compromise in the Senate and cause stalemates on many issues. Those who oppose removing the filibuster, including moderate-Democratic Senators and President Biden himself, point to the many times the Democrats have used the filibuster to their advantage, such as with President Bush's judicial nominees and abortion restrictions.
As of now, Senator McConnell has dropped his demand that the Democrats promise to preserve the filibuster, however, the inevitable rising pressure of activists to eliminate the rule as Republicans begin to block legislation means that this debate is certainly not over.
Should the filibuster be abolished? Would removing the filibuster allow the Senate to better represent the American people, rather than continue to favor the status quo of conservative legislation and ideology?
Senate.gov History on the Filibuster
WP on Why Democrats Should Preserve the Filibuster
4 comments:
Balance of power will always be a contentious issue in the US, and I think the filibuster, while having the potential to ensure that the “minority” or dissenting opinions are heard, also allows for the “tyranny” by the minority over the majority. There is also a consideration of compromise; if filibusters successfully hold off a vote, is a revised law that neither side is happy with necessarily better? At the same time, however, in a pluralistic society, I think it’s fair to say that the interests of one group should not dictate the experience of all others, and there must be a mechanism in place to have an open consideration of such competing interests, and right now, the most effective method to do so seems to be the filibuster. Congressmen and Congresswomen also have obligations to their own constituents, and the filibuster is a way of demonstrating that they are representing the interests of their constituents, regardless of party. At the end of the day, I think the minority party will usually want to maintain the filibuster and the majority to abolish it.
As Madison originally stated, the American government must not only protect the majority but also protect the minority from the majority, in essence keeping all groups safe. This has always been a really challenging balance to strike and has been the first challenge the founders had to contend with. From creating a representative democracy to attempting to weave pluralism throughout the government, they made many rules and concepts to protect all groups. The filibuster is one such rule that attempts to protect the minority. However, I agree with Niyati's comment. This ability of minorities definitely gets abused, and it has become more of a tyranny of the minority. It has tipped the balance far towards the benefit of minorities, and no longer supports the concept of pluralism. It is important to note, though, that without the filibuster the majority in the Senate is not limited -- by any sense -- by the minority. In summary, I believe pluralism and the protection of minority and majority groups are important. However, the filibuster has become an unfair tool of minorities. So what we need to evaluate as a society is how do we strike a perfect balance, one that equally enables both the minority and majority? I think there's no perfect answer to this, but one worth discussing.
The Filibuster, while it at times can seem unbalanced and unreasonable, is very important for the protection of the minority from the majority, which was one of the main goals of the founding fathers. That being said, it has been used in recent years to block the majority from passing legislation and giving the minority a lot of power, which has caused many issues for the progress of the US. Personally, I think it should be abolished because whoever controls the Senate at any given time should be able to pass legislation easier. This would also be naturally more balanced because party control in the senate, house, and presidency swaps every couple of years, meaning that if one party doesn't like previous legislation, they can work to remove it. Removing the filibuster would have a net positive on representation in the US since it would allow the current majority to have control and make changes they want during their leadership. Thank you for sharing!
Although I do understand Hamilton’s original arguments for the inclusion of the filibuster in congress in Federalist No.22 as a possible source of good from slowing down hasty arguments to consider the interests of all parties involved, in the current 21st century the filibuster is used more as a tool of pointless delay more than a measure to account for every perspective to be heard. For example, who could forget Ted Cruz’s recital of Green Eggs and Ham during a 21 hour filibuster attempt at critiquing, and thus delaying, the Affordable Health Care act. In this extremely polarized and non-bipartisan political climate, the filibuster is more prevalently used as a method to just further slow the agenda of one’s opposite political group, to attempt and limit as much of their influence as possible within government. This is particularly problematic since, as Jeffery Toobin mentions in Our Broken Constitution, procedures such as the filibusters contribute to our government being inherently conservative. Conservatives are often against change in policy by the government and prefer to maintain old social, economical and political infrastructure from years ago. This inherent conservative nature of government is thus created as new legislation in congress, that are up for debate, are often used to bring up progressive bills and advocate for social change. Thus, filibusters which are meant to impede and stop the progress of new legislation keeps existing parameters in government as new ones are unable to be passed. Although there is nothing wrong with conservative perspectives in government, a whole political system favoring one train of thought infringes on one of the basic reasonings behind the filibuster: to help everyone’s perspectives to be heard and protected in government. But more importantly, the ideals of the people need to be represented, not just an inherently conservative system that is easily enforced through the delay of new legislation. Although I cannot say that the Filibuster should be completely abolished as it, at times helps protect the minority from the majority, it should be subject of further debate and possibly looked at for reform.
Post a Comment