http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/83309-a-proposal-to-end-abuse-of-filibuster
Summary: In the article "A Proposal to End Abuse of the Filibuster", Mark Mellman explores the history of party relationships and explains the current increase in polarization. Until recently, the Senate rarely simply refused to act. Filibustering was hardly used and only in extreme cases. Even during the many controversial decisions in the 60s such as the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, no Senate term produced more than 7 filibusters. In 1986, one filibuster lasted for 23 hours and 30 minutes to stall debate on a military debate, the second longest in US history. The article proposes that the only way to limit this abuse is to only allow parties in Congress to filibuster a certain number of times. In this way, Congress would be able to keep its tradition while restricting its misuse.
Connection: The debate over the use of filibustering n Congress has been brought to the forefront of the publics attention due to the gridlock in Congress and the increasing polarization between the political parties. As the parties have grown farther apart, filibustering has become more and more common, to the point where it is blatantly being abused. It has slowed the congressional process to a snail's pace, making it largely unproductive.
Questions:
Has the use of filibustering contributed to the gridlock in Congress?
What is the value in allowing congressmen/women to filibuster (if there is any)?
Should filibustering be banned?
I think the biggest value in allowing congressmen/women to filibuster is that the minorities are able to prevent the absolute power of the majority. Filibustering acts as a check on the majority power. However, it does limit the amount of work that can be passed by the majority rule. Overall, allowing congress to filibuster allows the legislative process to slow down, which allows for serious consideration and question. Congress men have more time to think about the issues at hand while also helping to keep the majority rule in check.
ReplyDeleteWhile I recognize the importance of the filibuster, and how it helps the minority regulate the power of the majority, I think it is very counterproductive for groups to endlessly filibuster. I think this causes a lot of political gridlock, but restricting the number of filibusters to a set value is a bad idea, because in theory, a Congress with a majority party could push through enough bills to go over the limit, and then, the minority could do little to stop it. I think that the only way to fix this is for the ideology around the use of filibusters to change from stopping anything a party doesn't like to being only used when absolutely necessary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Drew's statement in saying how the only way to fix the problem is for the ideology around the use of filibusters to change. I think by making rules, such as limiting the amount of times it can be used, will not solve anything because it should be used when necessary, not a fixed amount of times. Filibustering allows both the majority and minority to act as a checks and balance amongst each other, however it's power should not be abused.
DeleteI agree with the article that limiting filibustering would be the best way to limit its abuse. If filibusters were banned all together, the majority rule would be able to pass any bill their party agrees with. By limiting the number of filibusters, minority groups still have the power to block bills, however, they will be forced to make some compromises. The current system cannot continue as neither side will concede and nothing will get done in the Senate's current state of gridlock.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mollie that filibusters allow the minority to prevent the majority from having absolute power, despite it limiting the amount of work that can be accomplished. Limiting the amount of filibusters that the minority can do will allow more things to get passed, and more to be done. We cannot change the ideology of a the filibuster. If we really wanted to avoid limiting the amount of filibusters, or changing the ideology of filibusters, we would need to redo our current system for passing bills which would be far more costly than just limiting the amount of filibusters available, and forcing the minority to compromise.
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting part of the article was its discussion of the value of filibustering. In the past, filibustering was used sparingly and only on major issues. Today, groups in Congress abuse this privilege because every matter discussed is categorized as important. I think the most interesting consequence of limiting the filibuster would be that it would require minority groups to realign what they define as important. Nowadays, Congress members argue about everything and groups are constantly switching sides in order to gain more voters. Limiting the filibuster would help the discussion in Congress be more concise as groups are required to prioritize the legislation they hope to pass and be more explicit on the issues they stand for.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFilibusters provide an important method for minorities to prevent absolute power, but they are also a definite cause for gridlock. Eliminating filibusters would improve the efficiency of Congress, but then minorities would not be able to check the power of the majority. Creating a limit on filibusters is one solution, but there is also potential to create a completely different solution entirely, such as the alternative proposed in this New York Times article.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-an-alternative-to-the-filibuster.html
After having read the article, I can agree that there needs to be an end to the abuse of filibustering. However, I do not think that filibustering in itself should be banned because it is an important tool for the minority party when it comes to proposed bills that go against their fundamental beliefs. So rather than banning filibusters as a whole, just as Mellman writes in his article, there should be a limit placed on the number of filibusters allowed for each term of the Senate.
ReplyDeleteWhile the abuse of filibusters contributes to policy gridlock, the idea to limit the number of filibusters takes away an important power from the minority party. Ideally, consensus would drive the decisions made in Congress, but it is evident that this idealized form of government is not possible. However, limiting the rights of the minority to express their stance diminishes the importance of their issues by trivializing the minority's voice in comparison to the majority's influence. From a broader standpoint, eliminating the abuse of filibusters may improve the effectiveness of Congress, but may also lead to another block later on the road by the minority party.
ReplyDeleteMy belief over filibustering is that it consumes time when Congress could be working more fluidly and rapidly. Although it does help minorities, it can be seen as incredibly counterproductive in the eyes of many. The proposal given in the article where the minority leader is given a limited number of filibusters is an ideal way to cut down on gridlock and focus the filibusters on issues that congressmen feel very strongly about in order to clearly see the issues that cause conflict
ReplyDeleteMy belief over filibustering is that it consumes time when Congress could be working more fluidly and rapidly. Although it does help minorities, it can be seen as incredibly counterproductive in the eyes of many. The proposal given in the article where the minority leader is given a limited number of filibusters is an ideal way to cut down on gridlock and focus the filibusters on issues that congressmen feel very strongly about in order to clearly see the issues that cause conflict
ReplyDeleteI believe that filibustering has significantly slowed down progress of our nation as it has prevented important laws from being passed. The gridlock in congress needs to be sorted out in order to further help our nation. I believe that filibustering shouldn't completely be removed because it can often help prevent some laws from being passed that could harm America. Especially with Donald Trump being elected it will be important for preventing the passing of laws that will harm the environment.
ReplyDelete