It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harkin, Shaeen Eye filibuster Reform....

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Nearly 15 years ago, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Joe Lieberman presented a plan to eliminate the Senate filibuster and allow Congress to pass bills by majority rule. The bill failed miserably, 76 to 19.

About a month ago, the progressive Iowan signaled his interest in trying again. In about 20 minutes, Harkin and his new co-sponsor will kick off a new effort to allow the legislative branch of the government to function again. A press statement from Harkin's office reads:

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) will be joined by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) at a press conference this afternoon following the introduction of their bill to reform Senate rules that have been abused by the minority to create record gridlock. Senator Harkin introduced a similar bill in 1995, when the Democratic Party was in the minority.

"In an economic climate that has been devastating for Americans, it's time for the Senate to get moving on a jobs bill, on financial regulatory reform, and on health care," Senator Harkin said. "The minority party has ground Senate business to a halt by abusing the rules, and it's time to reform the process."

In the 1950s, there was an average of one filibuster per Congress. Last Congress, motions were filed to end filibusters a record 139 times, and they continue at a similar pace through 2009 (67 cloture motions last year).

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


www.washingtonmonthly.com...

What do you think? Personally I am against this. I am of the opinion that you need more than just a simple majority to pass a bill. I think that allowing a filibuster is important to our republic, because the threat of a filibuster a way to keep balance in our Senate.

I think that this is a desperate attempt by the left to keep what they have of a majority in power. A majority that they actually have, yet somehow are impotent to do anything with. Which I don't have to tell you is extremely frustrating. Now with the election of Brown and the loss of the super-majority, the Democrats once again decide that perhaps changing the rules to suit their needs is the way to go.

Foul play Dems, foul play indeed. I think this new rule if implemented would just lead to abuse by the majority.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I totally agree with you whatukno! If we don't recognize the right of a minority to overturn majority decisions, we'd end up in a democracy in no time!



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


The way this works is that the longer a bill takes the less votes it would need. Eventually a simple majority vote would be all that is needed to pass a bill. So how would the minority party be able to fight against giant government and massive tax hikes if all the majority has to do is just wait it out till the votes needed is low enough to pass a bill?



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Hopefully this bill won't get legs. I agree with you my friend. The only thing that stands in the way of one party or another slamming things through is a fillibuster. And using the jobs bill as an example of why it needs to be removed is classic scumbag politics.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


We don't often agree, but S & F for you on this one.

The filibuster rules help keep either party from creating a situation where the opposition just doesn't matter or figure into the process - which should never be allowed to happen. We were just almost in that situation, but thankfully the danger has passed.

[edit on 2/12/2010 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


In an ideal world there would be no need for the filibuster because there wouldn't just be two major parties trying to control legislation. The senate would be filled with independent folks trying to do what is best for the country.



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join