Is the concept of the filibuster really in the Constitution?

The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837 when a group of Whig senators filibustered to prevent allies of the Democratic President Andrew Jackson from expunging a resolution of censure against him. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter a new national bank.

adopted in the inadvertently in 1789 but rarely used until the '50s and '60s by southern senators to fight civil rights legislation.

It's still nothing but a road block to progress and should be jettisoned.

Senate Filibuster Was Created By Mistake (in 1805/1806)

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

In 2010, Brookings Senior Fellow Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress and congressional history, testified to the Senate that “the 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.

snip

The Constitution specifies that each Chamber sets its own rules.

is that rule 'fair'. Why are 60 votes vs 40, more fair? and not 50-50?

Maybe it's time for a class action suit. Simple majority.

Make their own rules for decorum, dress code, hours of operation, but not rules of democracy.

Constitution clearly says both houses will adopt their own rules of procedure.

The Constitution says each house can set its own procedures and rules. If the Senate wants to make it unanimous to start debate on a bill, then they could. And a class action lawsuit would go nowhere. No standing.

Imagine a Senate with 51 Republicans. Now imagine how many stupid bills they can pass unchallenged in one session.
I see it as the natural throttle for stupidity, and the motivation for bills to be written in a way to accommodate more people in a more broad fashion.
Yes, there is a price to pay for everything in our system and the way we do things, but the alternatives are far more costly.

to the Senate?

Your drugs.

Give me some, please.

Houses can make whatever rules they want, sure.

Are there limits? Probably. I'm guessing if they had a rule that said only white male Senators votes counted that wouldn't hold up.

Otherwise...

I believe the original question was whether the filibuster is in the Constitution.

I read that as: Does the Constitution mandate (or even prescribe) (or, for that matter, even remotely consider) the filibuster?

Clear answer: No.

Your response is to the question: Does the Constitution allow the filibuster?

Clear answer: Unfortunately, yes.

because the Constitution allows each body to make their own rules, and we didn't create the idea of a filibuster.

Plenty of things aren't "mandated" in the Constitution, the Constitution either allowing something or also not forbidding something are also possibilities.

And in this case, the Constitution specifically, and clearly, gives the power to each House of Congress to set their rules. That means it includes the filibuster.

BY those that wish to use it for their own benefits. Want to be originalist then act like them not some perversion.

It was designed to give more power to the *states* as a check on the house, which *was* supposed to represent the people.

Arguably, this was one of a number of features of the constitution to make it difficult to eliminate slavery.

...elitest from inception