Can Someone Explain the Filibuster?

Quote from TRNT : New Democrat [sic] voters? Hmm... The way I see it TeaPartiers are not really against the two party system. They are just pissed off that they are, nay, might be, losing their influence over the Republican party. Yes, they are against the Dems but they also pretend to be against the GOP, aka against the two party system and wanting to weaken also the GOP in as much as it will help them maintain their grip on the GOP. So the pretense of being against both parities is a win-win situation: weaken the Dems -- (always) a win. Weaken the establishment GOP so that TeaParty type people will retain their influence -- win. And I do believe them when they talk of revolution. Yes, if they lose the grip on the GOP, they would prefer revolution just like a spoiled child who if he cannot constantly play would rather take his ball and go home. Now whether this also explain your position, I have no idea. It is difficult to read a single person. But IMO the TeaParty agenda is pretty transparent (at least to me).

Libertarians (big L and little l) botched the whole Tea Party, OWS, anger at the government window. If there was ever a time for a third party to get a few seats, that was it. Unfortunately, no one capitalized.

Quote from smegalicious : Regardless of how legitimate your overall argument might be, you do yourself (and your credibility) a huge disservice by tossing in such hyperbolic, and obviously false, propaganda. Not only that, but then you double-down by emphasizing how supposedly "important" such false claims are to your argument.

His entire campaign WAS financed privately and there was no audit performed on it. This is not propaganda, it is common knowledge. There was no attempt to hide this information.

Quote from TRNT : Yet it is not in the Constitution. Hmm...

Hmmm, what? That you don't understand that each chamber of Congress determines its own rules and proceedings? That each chamber is empowered to do so by the Constitution?

My goodness...

Quote from jonsmith74 : Hmmm, what? That you don't understand that each chamber of Congress determines its own rules and proceedings? That each chamber is empowered to do so by the Constitution? My goodness...

I understand that real well. Why would you ask that?

Do you disagree that filibuster is not in the constitution?

My goodness...

Quote from dealgate : His entire campaign WAS financed privately and there was no audit performed on it. This is not propaganda, it is common knowledge. There was no attempt to hide this information.

Link?

If there was no "audit" of his campaign finances, then how did the FEC fine his campaign for not returning improper donations fast enough?

A jockey that weighs over 600 lbs

Quote from TRNT : I understand that real well. Why would you ask that? Do you disagree that filibuster is not in the constitution? My goodness...

So what if it is not in the Constitution? No reasonable person would expect the Constitution to you include such rules of order...

Quote from smegalicious : Link? If there was no "audit" of his campaign finances, then how did the FEC fine his campaign for not returning improper donations fast enough?

Are we talking about Obama not accepting public campaign finance dollars...

Quote from jonsmith74 : So what if it is not in the Constitution? No reasonable person would expect the Constitution to you include such rules of order... Are we talking about Obama not accepting public campaign finance dollars...

You seem to work too hard to disagree......similar rules (of order?) indeed are in the Constitution. For example to override a presidential veto both Houses must vote 2/3.

If the filibuster was the intent or desire of the FF sand if it is as important as the poster top whom I was responding believes, they would have put it in the Constitution.

Quote from TRNT : You seem to work too hard to disagree......similar rules (of order?) indeed are in the Constitution. For example to override a presidential veto both Houses must vote 2/3. If the filibuster was the intent or desire of the FF sand if it is as important as the poster top whom I was responding believes, they would have put it in the Constitution.

Congress overriding an action of another branch would kinda belong I am the constitution, no? As the document animates that relationship between the branches.

On the other hand, specific rules of order such as how and when amendments may be offered, the organization and structure of committees, why would the ff ever presume the foresight to cement how the chambers should operate day today by codifying it in the constitution?

You see this is what you miss about the ff... They possessed a humble sense of restraint. The constitution seeks to manage the power and tension between the branches of government.

You seem to think the constitution exists to control anything you perceive to be important. And that simply ain't the case.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Congress overriding an action of another branch would kinda belong I am the constitution, no? As the document animates that relationship between the branches.

Well, the Constitution says 2/3 vote of the senate is required for constitutional amendments. so it could have said the same thing about bill passing by the senate.

But it did not.

and that is the point. That is, they did not think requiring 60 votes for cloture was as important as the poster that i initially responded to thought. Else the FF would have put it in the constitution as they did wrt constitutional amendments.

Why are you trying so hard to be disagreeable. This is not that big of a deal and IMO it is rather clear cut issue.

Quote from TRNT : Well, the Constitution says 2/3 vote of the senate is required for constitutional amendments. so it could have said the same thing about bill passing by the senate. But it did not. and that is the point. That is, they did not think requiring 60 votes for cloture was as important as the poster that i initially responded to thought. Else the FF would have put it in the constitution as they did wrt constitutional amendments. Why are you trying so hard to be disagreeable. This is not that big of a deal and IMO it is rather clear cut issue.

It's important we all remember where the filibuster originates: Cato the Younger fighting against Julius Caesar.

Quote from TRNT : Well, the Constitution says 2/3 vote of the senate is required for constitutional amendments. so it could have said the same thing about bill passing by the senate. But it did not. and that is the point. That is, they did not think requiring 60 votes for cloture was as important as the poster that i initially responded to thought. Else the FF would have put it in the constitution as they did wrt constitutional amendments. Why are you trying so hard to be disagreeable. This is not that big of a deal and IMO it is rather clear cut issue.

I'm not sure why you the think the constitution exists to codify really important things as opposed to, say, animating the concept of separate, co-equal branches of govt, empowering the branches while also limiting their authority and providing a method for amending the constitution itself.

Why would you think that how the Senate conducts it's business is on the same order of providing a mechanism for amending the founding document?

That makes no sense. Hence, that's why you don't see in the constitution codified rules managing each chamber's business.

Quote from jonsmith74 : So what if it is not in the Constitution? No reasonable person would expect the Constitution to you include such rules of order....

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.

Quote from jonsmith74 : I'm not sure why you the think the constitution exists to codify really important things as opposed to, say, animating the concept of separate, co-equal branches of govt, empowering the branches while also limiting their authority and providing a method for amending the constitution itself. Why would you think that how the Senate conducts it's business is on the same order of providing a mechanism for amending the founding document? That makes no sense. Hence, that's why you don't see in the constitution codified rules managing each chamber's business.

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.