Pramukh Bhushan Week #11: Filibusters and the Power of Speaking
While reading my Obama book for my POAS project, I came across a strategy used in the Senate called the “filibuster,” which can prevent laws from passing. During filibusters, Senate minorities “[talk] endlessly and refuse to surrender the floor,” consequently bringing “Senate business to a halt”(Obama 250). This method originated in 1805 when Vice President Burr had the Senate remove a provision that let the Senators end a debate and ask for a vote.
Today, for a bill to pass, Senators need to debate, have a super-majority deciding to start a vote, and a majority during the actual vote. However, if the minority group gets 41 votes, they can essentially end a debate, preventing the law from being voted on. This loophole is used frequently to get “all sorts of concessions from frustrated colleagues,” making it harder to pass laws (Obama 250). Thus, Senators have the power to limit progress on a bill by simply using their voice and not backing down.
You may wonder, if Senators can stall time, how can we get any bills passed? Luckily, in 1917 the Senate enacted a two-thirds majority rule which was later decreased to three-fifths(60 votes), to end a filibuster—a method called cloture. In the past, filibusters were used by Southern Democrats to block bills that threatened Jim Crow Laws like “anti-lynching and fair employment bills” (Obama 350). The record for the longest filibuster was set by Storm Thurmond who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes straight against the Civil Rights Act.
Filibusters are a significant example of how people can gain power in America by continuously using their voices and refusing to be silenced. However, I feel stalling votes is immoral as it hinders progress for the American people. If American Senators are prevented from voting on bills, are filibusters even constitutional? In my opinion, I feel filibusters should be removed as it gives Senators too much power and obstructs our democratic rights.
It seems like everyday I find out a new way our government is corrupted. It is interesting how senators are supposed to preach justice and equality, yet they do not put trust in the voting system or allow for voting to be carried out fairly as it is supposed to. There definitely needs to be a reevaluation of who can be a senator because it is ridiculous there are people who try to waste other people's time by debating in order to put off passing laws. What are we really paying these people for if they are not going to play fairly by the books?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOur government never seems to be getting any less corrupt. It honestly all makes no sense because our senators support one thing, but don't trust systems that go under that category. What's the point of supporting something when you don't trust systems around that? Its interesting to think of how senators are chosen because obviously it's not the right way. I hope someday in the near future, they build a well developed system to chose senators and honestly every government position appointees. We need to rethink a lot about our government because our nation has so much to improve yet we are wasting our time on things that frankly just slow things down.
ReplyDeleteHello Pramukh,
ReplyDeleteI did not know that the Senate could vote to not have a vote. The more I learn about politics, the more I find that microeconomics plays a greater role in any decision being made. While a group may be trying to promote a macroeconomic change, our system always leaves a way for the personal interests of powerful individuals to gain more influence. I found it interesting that, in this case, the powerful individuals just want to do nothing. They do not want the economy they have succeeded in to change for fear of not personally benefiting from it. Every economist and politician knows that improving the economy will indirectly benefit everyone, even if it takes decades. The longer they try to hide inside their wealth and influence bubble, the higher the risk there will be of it popping.
Hi Pramukh, it's surprising that such an archaic practice is used commonly in the twenty-first century. This practice just leads to policymakers finding an easy way to block the opposition, even if that method may seem ancient. I heard that Democrats were recently trying to abolish the filibuster, but I haven't seen that movement become bipartisan yet. The American policy system needs changes that will modernize the way that ideas become law otherwise our country will continue to live in the past.
ReplyDeleteHey Pramukh, this was actually a really interesting blog to read as I've never looked this deeply into how the Senate actually conducted votes and debates on legislature. I think it's ironic though that there is a law in place for the few people on the Senate to be able to use their voice to stop the passing of legislature that can affect the whole nation and yet the government often ignores, at least to some extent, the voices of the people themselves. The concept of filibusters is also interesting because while it does seem a nuisance in most cases, I wonder if there are a few cases that could truly benefit from the power that this law gives to minority groups in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteHey Pramukh! I had never heard of “filibusters” up until this point, and based on the information you give me, I still feel conflicted and confused about this idea. I agree with you to an extent-- filibusters do hinder Senate’s progress by stalling votes and passings of law. However, a minority, theoretically, COULD have America’s best interests in mind and be the small section standing up for human rights. Especially when the law is wholeheartedly unconstitutional, I see the purpose and benefit of filibusters. However, I presume that the majority of Senators would rarely all congregate and support a useless, unbeneficial law, so I see your point on how filibusters could hinder Congressional progress. The U.S government honestly has many flaws (as does any government), and it will be a while before we see a truly constitutional governing body.
ReplyDeleteHi Pramukh! There are many differing views of filibusters. Such tactics can be beneficial in bringing out minority voices, but also hinder the process of implementing other actions or bills. In incidents such as filibusters against protection of people like the anti lynching bills, in the best interest of the majority, I agree that they should be removed.
ReplyDeleteHi Pramukh! The more I read about the government, the more I realize that I know absolutely nothing about it. Filibusters sound quite concerning. It really reminds me of all those activists that speak about issues and the urgent need to resolve the issues. However, I hardly ever see people actually take action. Filibusters may be beneficial in allowing the voices of individuals be heard, but what good will it do if no action is taken?
ReplyDeleteHi Pramukh, I agree, a proper balance has to be found between the freedom to voice your opinion versus falling into the area of just using the freedom to stall and get your own way. On the one hand, people have the right to voice their opinions and argue for their side. But on the other hand, some people just use the system to force their special interest on others when it doesn’t really benefit the majority of the population. It really only benefits a special interests group. It does feel like the elected officials in Congress have a lot of power but they don’t actually get much done because they are continuously arguing with each other, instead of finding compromises that work.
ReplyDelete