Is the word FILIBUSTER even in the US Constitution?

[Captain Zero]

Hoping someone knows so I don't have to look it up myself. I'm lazy.
And if it is not even in there, why does it screw around with so damn much?

[Ocelot II]

1. No, it isn't.

In fact, it was created by mistake. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

[OAITW r.2.0]

4. We really need a "Filibuster for Dummies" course....for most people.

Including me. Seems like a great topic for MSNBC to devote an hour to....

On edit, I think Lawrence O'Donnell would be the perfect person to put this together.

[Celerity]

13. MSNBC has had multiple segments on it, but they never go all the wat back to the 1806 mistake

They always start at 1837, when it was first used.

They also (and this is SO key), never get into the fundamental fact that the framers NEVER considered the Senate to be a place where a minority could literally stop legislation dead in its tracks permanently (for that session).

Manchin is simply wrong (as are the Rethugs and any other defender of the filibuster) when he says the Senate was designed that way since 1789. It was ALWAYS envisioned from the beginning as a majoritarian body, the same as the House. It just was designed for lengthier debate.

Until it is massively altered via new precedents (using Senate Rule Rule XX, so as to render it completely toothless) or removed as a Rule (removed is never going to happen, it takes a 2/3rds majority) it is, along with the Electoral College, the ability of the States to run FEDERAL elections, gerrymandering, and yes, the very way the Senate itself is structured (soon 70% of the seats will be controlled by just 30% of the population, and that 30% is far more reactionary, white, less educated, fundie religious, racist, older on average, and RW than the other 70% of the population) a long wave Constitutional ticking time bomb, that when combined with the other things listed, quite likely will lead eventually to the dissolution of the Union of The States.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. It seems every day I find more evidence that the wrong guy won that duel.

[Celerity]

14. The Senate itself in 1806 is just as much to blame, as they just said, ok, and removed the Previous

Question Motion, which has led us to where we are now. They deffo did not put some deep thought into it, which is quite surprising.

The Founders and earlier Congresses relied too much on the conception of 'fair play and good intentions' from an enlightened class of humans. They completely lost the plot on future-forward projections that took into account the possibility of insane partisanship (which when combined with something they DID envision, a tyrant as POTUS, renders their solution for the tyrant essentially null and void, ie a monster like Trump combined with an outlaw Party big enough to keep him safe and sound to continue the tyrannical endeavours), the explosion of population in certain states/regions that would lead to a crazy imbalance in the Senate, etc etc etc.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. Absolutely not ... it's a Senate rule they wrote for themselves (nt)

[OAITW r.2.0]

3. I think it's a Senate construct.

Some weird thing that Democrats agreed to under unfavorable circumstances. I hope someone does a "History of the Filibuster" so we can all get up to speed on what it meant and why it needs to go now. Our democracy depends on it.

[Celerity]

12. see my reply #10

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215229159#post10

[everyonematters]

6. It's not in the Constituion; It's not a law. All it is is a Senate rule.

[Azathoth]

7. Technically, it's not even in the Senate rules

The Senate rules merely provide for the right of a Senator to debate a bill as long as he sees fit, with the provision that ths Senate can shut down debate with a 60-vote cloture motion.

Filibustering is just a strategy of cynically exploiting that rule.

[bottomofthehill]

8. It is a simple senate rule that has been around for a long, long time.

It only takes a majority to change, but as of now, we are two votes minimum of the majority of senators needed to change it.

[bamagal62]

9. It seems to be a stupid rule. And who started it?

[Celerity]

11. it came from a rule being mistakenly removed in 1806 (The Previous Question Motion) see my reply

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215229159#post10

[lagomorph777]

17. Literally, Senator Filibuster started it.

[Celerity]

10. No, it was created by mistake, from an 1806 rules change in the Senate, as suggested in 1805

by VP Aaron Burr.


Senate Filibuster Was Created By Mistake

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/11/20/senate-filibuster-was-created-by-mistake/

We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathers’ constitutional vision for the Senate: It is said that the upper chamber was designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body that cherished minority rights. In this version of history, the filibuster was a critical part of the framers’ Senate.

However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain. The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.

What happened to the Senate’s rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.

Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to. Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.

[bamagal62]

16. So, I guess he was in the room where it happened after all.

[RandySF]

15. No