"Generally speaking, depicting your opponents as "crazed lunatics" and yourself as the voice of reason is easier when you are not using all caps and exclamation points. Still, in this case, Trump's position is correct. The filibuster is a deformed anachronism. Its demise would benefit the whole country, and Democrats especially, given the bills and Senate procedures that this tactic tends to block. If Trump's impulsive, short-horizon leadership style is what finally does the filibuster in, then Democrats should help make it so."
"The Senate filibuster, which allows lawmakers to halt action on most bills unless 60 of the 100 senators in the chamber vote to move forward, is not in the Constitution. The Founders considered, and rejected, a supermajority requirement for either chamber, imposing one only for treaties and constitutional amendments. The practice evolved out of an arcane accident of parliamentary rules in the 19th century and has changed form many times, becoming a requirement for 60 percent of the chamber starting in 1975."
Donald Trump proposes changing Senate rules to let a majority keep the government open instead of allowing 41 senators to force a shutdown. He has framed the proposal with blunt, all-caps rhetoric and partisan insults, but the procedural proposal remains straightforward. The Senate filibuster requires 60 votes to move most bills and is not grounded in the Constitution. The Founders rejected supermajority rules for ordinary legislation, and the 60-vote practice evolved from 19th-century parliamentary accidents and solidified in 1975. Historically the filibuster enabled minority obstruction, including blocking civil-rights laws. Eliminating it would empower majority governance and ease passage of blocked bills.
Read at The Atlantic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]