Can Someone Explain the Filibuster?

Well there you go. I wonder what that says about people that make such statements...

The entire Bill of Rights was argued against by the Federalists, the very folks that gave us implied powers. The Bill of Rights was unnecessarily redundant as the Constitution only granted limited powers to the federal government, no need to list the innumerable rights that they can't violate. I think Hamilton argued something like the more rights that are listed, the more problematic it is. Governments tend to abuse rights that aren't listed.

There are some people that don't care about the ideas of those old white, slave-owning fogeys. Interesting though how they could predict - and warned against- how the future of their government they were setting up could actually end up looking like. It serves them to ignore supporting documents of the Constitution like letters, journals, convention notes, Federalist and other various papers,. It is here that we can see the outlines and justifications for various decisions and wording. Let's ignore everything written about arms and militias but Jefferson's letter describing the wall of separation of church and state suddenly becomes useful - which predictably the zealot right wing ignores.

Anyone that attempts argue against filibusters because they aren't in the Constitution and also happens to argue that the right to bear arms is limited to militias only demonstrates to me that original intent doesn't matter to some people. They make a decision that something is good, bad, right or wrong, even if not because of rational, critical thought but on emotion or intuitive 'feeling' and then look for support to justify their position even if it means completely ignoring/dismissing reason.

If a person that claims to support our Constitution also says they support the Executive branch to have the power to kill our own citizens without any oversight or due process, cannot be trusted to have any opinion based on anything other that appeal to emotion.

Either how many votes it takes to pass an item in the senate is managing their business or not. Make up your mind. Passing a bill, passing a constitutional amendment. They are bothe passing an item in the senate. Potato potahto.

I hope you recognize that I was talking about something very specific when I commented "So what if it is not in the Constitution." And I was replying to someone who was arguing against filibusters because they're not explicitly provided for in the Constitution. It should be quite clear why something like the filibuster would not be noted in the Constitution...

Rand Paul is doing a classic, talking filibuster on CSPAN2 right now.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Rand Paul live filibuster still going.

Judge Napolitano ‏@Judgenap
"This isn't a struggle between Republicans and Democrats. This is a struggle between the President and the Constitution." @SenRandPaul

nah, it was purely partisan.


no one actually watched it.

A jockey that weighs over 600 lbs

Nobody else commented, so I just wanted to let you know that I

Rand Paul is doing a classic, talking filibuster on CSPAN2 right now.

big respect to mr Paul for this

big respect to mr Paul for this