Filibusters: History, Purpose, & Controversy [POLICYbrief]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2024
- In the 1939 classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the fictional Senator Jefferson Smith filibusters on the floor of the Senate for 25 hours in order to delay a bill and block a graft scheme. Smith ended his filibuster by collapsing in a faint.
Though actual filibusters tend to be far less dramatic, they are still regularly utilized by senators to extend debate, block legislation, delay a vote, or achieve legislative consensus. But has the filibuster always been used this way? In this video co-sponsored by the Article I Initiative, Senator Mike Lee (Utah) explores the evolution of the filibuster and its use in the Senate.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
Learn more about Mike Lee:
www.lee.senate...
Learn more about the Article I Initiative:
www.fedsoc.org/...
Related Links & Differing Views:
Congressional Research Service: “Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate”
www.senate.gov...
The New York Times: “The Senate Filibuster, Explained”
www.nytimes.co...
The Atlantic: “The Silenced Majority”
www.theatlanti...
Claremont Institute: “Against Senate Resolution 355”
www.claremont....
The Federalist Society Podcast: “Changing the Rules: The Senate Filibuster”
fedsoc.org/com...
Omg, this was AMAZING! I'm absolutely ecstatic that you ACTUALLY provided opposing viewpoints in the description! I f***ing love you for that. I'm sick of people pushing an agenda on me because I would just like the facts, opposing interpretations and allow me to draw my own conclusions. This video EXEMPLIFIES everything America wants and NEEDS in today's society and politics.
First video I watched from you, immediate subscription
If democrats were to lose control of information it would be their demise.
I actually quite loved that this was advertised. I learned something about the government I normal would've never known so thank you. :)
There's a certain irony in people who claim to want a constitutional system that as closely as possible resembles the original intent of the founders, yet go on to shamelessly defend a parliamentary precedent that the founders clearly never intended to create.
Thank you so much for providing an unbiased overview.
I just want the information then I'll make up my mind myself.
3:03 Surely it is unconstitutional. If the consequence of not getting 60 votes to end a filibuster is that the bill doesn’t even make it to a basic majority vote, then _in practice_ it means a bill needs 60 votes to pass, not 51.
I would much rather a bill having to pass with 60 or even 67 votes than a thin 1 vote margin
@Libturds Trigger
Sure the more votes the better, but the point is the Constitution says a majority is all that’s required, so anything that prevents that is unconstitutional by definition.
@@Thomas15 kinda like "shall not be infringed"?? Oh wait, you only care about the Constitution when it suits you?
@Dakota Keeler
The right to speak in a legislative debate shouldn’t necessitate undermining the constitutional requirement of a majority vote to pass.
Have a majority vote to decide whether to proceeds to debate, followed by a majority vote to pass the bill.
Actually, 60 votes are TECHNICALLY not needed. 60 is needed to END debate and move to a vote. De facto, a bill does require at least 60 votes. However, if the Senate was able to compromise to get 2/3 of senators to invoke cloture on the Civil Rights Act, I think the Senate should be able to compromise enough for 3/5.
I'd like to use 30 seconds of this video - between 3:15 and 3:45 - for an amateur podcast episode about the podcast and arguments for and against it. Could I have permission to sample this video for this purpose?
Super informative, thank you~
“There is nothing racist about keeping the filibuster. And here’s the question: If it’s a tool of racism, why did they use it so much when they were in the minority? Why did they use it to stop [Sen.] Tim Scott’s ability to have a discussion about police reform? This is hypocrisy and it’s not going to work.”
---Lindsay Graham 22 April 2021
I’d imagine Green Eggs & Ham doesn’t quite fall into the category of promoting healthy debate 🤷🏻♂️🤔
Debate would actually make sense IF parties didn't exist. Because then you would need to educate yourself before voting.
However, we live in an age where politicians put spin on everything and nothing is fact. Therefore, the Filibuster is truly pointless.
Awful background music tends to cast the subject as a scheme or joke or unimportant. And the music is too loud and distracts from the content. And the content by the esteemed Utah Senator, is not the best he could do, I think. I am now looking for a better video.
How unbelievably naive. To think people will come to the halls of power to debate and risk actually having their minds changed. We are simply seeing now how brazenly this is being abused, but the biggest mistake was thinking that human nature wouldn't have abused it in the first place.
We have to abuse it so we know Where it is weak therefore we can strengthen its weakness. But as self-identified intelligent beings, we also need to know when to stop. We cannot bully our own creations. Then our creations won't believe in us. Hence leading to the misunderstanding of the true purpose of said creation.
I get the historical use but frankly that was before clowns decided that green eggs and ham was proper debate.
Oh m gosh I forgot that happened.
Yeah but through most of history it was not use "so much" to block and kill legislation. It has become abused to the point where it needs reform or abolishing.
Your opinion is definitely up for debate. 🥁
Yea, minority rules.
I get how it can delay actions for a long time, but why don’t congressmen just simply get on with what they were doing before, after the filibusterer stops talking? They can only go on for so long so I see how they delay things, but I don’t get how it’s said the filibuster “blocks” actions
Call, call, call your reps. Make them do the job you sent them to do. Pester until they block your number, then use another phone. CALL.
Thanks, great presentation
Your avatars are more diverse than reality.
Typical victim, be the change you want to see.
I think not as a rule, rather by convention, filibustering should stay on topic for the most part. If we make it a rule, we get rid of the free deliberative aspect of the Senate. The goal should be trying to convince enough people. While that's not as possible now, we can work towards it and this could be a step in the right direction of reaching that goal. While I'm not a fan of Strom Thurmond's racism, I have to give the guy respect for staying on topic for the most part during his 24 hour filibuster, unlike Huey Long. No more just using debate to bash the other side to score political points. Also, no more political theater.
I had to watch this for school and didn't learn anything
I am sorry- try another video. That’s allowed.
Thanks! I'd like to have heard more about the talking filibuster vs not.
Too bad I had to filter through all the PBS, MSNBC, late night “comedy” and CNN videos to get to this one.
the music made me feel like I was watching a Pixar movie
Gop senators blocked the hell out of every Obama bill with this thing I think it’s broken
Obama was no stranger to utilizing the filibuster himself. To pretend this is some partisan tool is ignorant of history.
@@carp3tstain The problem people have is not the use but how it's used. When it's used not for it's intended purpose any more it should be change or fixed
Yea because the DNC would neeeeveeeer need to stop a republican backed bill and see useful to filibuster it. But when the GOP takes power they will WISH they had the filibuster rule.
@@Saint_Wolf_ yep... Lol!
Childish rule and totally unnecessary. Very unproductive piece of legislation especially during today's culture in government when most of its members act extremely immature.
IMHO, the filibuster is annoying, but still necessary. Granted I think the silent filibuster gets used too much. I'm not opposed to its use on the big bills like For the [Politicians] Act.
Why not just wait out a filibuster? Also, what happened in the 70s that led to the decrease in talking filibusters and an increase in silent filibusters?
Change in senate rules.
Because you don't want your President to be a lame duck President. You're meant to negotiate to end it, so you can get legislation on his damn desk.
However if you keep calling your opponents Racist Redneck Maga Nazis, they'll tell you to get da fucq outta here and come back when you treat them with respect.
I still don't get it...
It's meant to encourage Political parties to engage in diplomacy.... But it doesn't work when you both hate each others guts with "the other side are White Supremacist Nazis" and refuse to do so.
What debate? They're just rabbling stuff like childrens stories and somehow it's allowed.
Didn't need the background music.
OK, I get it. The filibuster was initiated to encourage debate and consensus. I am 74 years old. Ease provide me with one, just one, example of a Senate filibuster during my lifetime that was not used to block the passage of a bill.
It was also initiated to encourage diplomacy and bipartisanship.
It doesn't help when you call Republicans racist redneck Nazis, refuse to negotiate with them, AND refuse to admit you're being a bad sportsman by not treating your opponents with basic respect.
American society degenerating into "KKK Founders & Slavery Defenders"(Democrats) VS "KKK Currently & Modern Racism Defenders"(Republicans) broke it.
Admit your both equally disgusting to each other and start respecting your own democracy and it's history.
I would much rather a bill pay pass with 60 or even 67 votes than a thin 1 vote margin
Seems like Biden's on the right track returning debate to the filibuster?
Why is Lee here explaining the filibuster. Don’t like him. Bye.