DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

I am interesting everyone’s thoughts on the filibuster in the senate .

Keep it or not. ? And why?

I doubt there will ever be a time in the future when one party will ever have 67 seats.

Given that isn’t it now the biggest block to accomplishing anything?

Hasn’t it become a fall back to the party that can’t articulate their platform to the v**ers?

Wouldn’t doing away with it go a long way to forcing senators to actually work with each other through compromise .?

Your thoughts ?

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

The filibuster is a relic of days gone by and needs to be eliminated.
Presently, the Democrats are in power because the people v**ed them in. They should eliminate the filibuster and then concentrate on making the changes that they promised to make.
When the next e******n comes along, the people will decide whether or not they want to keep them in power or v**e the Republicans back in.
That is the way the systems supposed to work.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

A few good questions. It seems to me to be rather complex, and I have no answers to your questions.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Along with the E*******l College. Get rid of them.

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Then why did you feel the need to respond, Casper.....???

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

I agree but getting rid of the e*******l college requires a constitutional amendment . I think , with the ultra divided country, the odds of that ever happening are near zero.

On the other hand the filibuster is merely a senate procedural rule and be done away with immediately.

pendennis

There have been a number of threats by Schumer and his allies to do away with the filibuster.

Agreed that the filibuster is a relic, but it was reduced from 67 v**es, down to 60, in the mid-70's when the Dems still had a majority. It's only a procedural step.

The real changes in the Senate will come whenever an amendment convention happens, and they put forth an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment. If repealed, the Senatorial powers will revert back to the states, where the Founders intended. The Senate, except for its arcane rules, is only a popularity contest like the House. The Senate and House would never pass an amendment to limit their powers, so an amendment convention is the only path. Congress has no power in a convention. Passing an amendment only requires a simple majority in a convention, but requires a 3/4 majority of the state legislatures to enact the amendment.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Not a fan of "one man, one v**e" I see.

pendennis

I didn't write that, nor imply it. However, the United States Constitution was written to ensure that the country wouldn't regress into mob rule, which is to what all popular v****g systems devolve. The bicameral system was instituted to inhibit emotional v****g, which is what democracies more often, than not, do. It also ensured that the rights of the states would be recognized and retained, by requiring that the state legislatures have real input into the Federal system.

The "one man, one v**e" is perfectly intact at the state level, where Representatives are elected. You only throw out a useless canard to try and bolster an unsupportable argument. You know perfectly well, that there is no provision in the Constitution for a "national referendum". I'm not willing, nor are most Americans, wont to cede power to a few states such as New York and California, to determine nationwide policy.

The House has just shown its ineptness and lust for power by trying to wrest e******n powers away from the states. H.R. 1 is unconstitutional on its face, and in no way guarantees "one man, one v**e".

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Unless I am mistaken once called, a constitutional convention has no limits.. in other words would it be open to whole sale changes to the constitution- a document that has served us well for centuries.

Let’s not forget - the only reason the founders left the se******n of senators to the states was in hopes it would help with the ratification process.

Personal I trust state legislatures not at all. They are the dirtiest politics there is .

Leave the se******n to the people.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

The constitution was written as is to avoid tyrants and monarchs.

Triple G

The National Popular V**e initiative indicates that the movement away from the archaic e*******l system is viewed differently by many more than you describe.

https://www.nationalpopularv**e.com/state-status

pendennis

Right now, a "national popular v**e" hasn't been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has already ruled on "faithless" e*****rs, and this so-called "national popular v**e" is just one more attempt to unconstitutionally affect the P**********l e******n. There is absolutely no provision under the Constitution for states to wholesale change the results of their e*****rs based on some national v**e total schema, and create "alliances" among the several states.

pendennis

Then why do you propose tyranny by democracy?

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Why do you have to politicize what was a civil.Intelligent discussion up to now ?