Well, seems talks are heating up again to get rid of the filibuster. I know this isn't an idea that is special to democrats, it seems to be a recurrence each new session, and the party with the majority starts talking about removing the filibuster, to neuter the minority. And the minority foams at the mouth about how wrong that would be.

Let me just say, this would be a HUGE knee jerk mistake. These buffoons need to find a way to compromise and work together, not try to change the rules to get their own stubborn way.

Filibuster was never an issue when the Senate represented the State legislatures, the 17th Amendment started a process to turn the Senate into another House of Congress. Ending the filibuster is the next step.

I would like to just skip past the formalities and get down to the end game, please. It's tedious now.

Here we go again.
Same old song again.
Marching down the avenue.
Few more days till we are through.
I won't have to look at you.
I'll be glad and so will you.

That's all that I think when I read this thread. :P

stebo0728 wrote:Filibuster was never an issue when the Senate represented the State legislatures, the 17th Amendment started a process to turn the Senate into another House of Congress. Ending the filibuster is the next step.

No it wasn't, and no it's not.

IBCoupe wrote: No it wasn't, and no it's not.

As always, you and I are going to have to just disagree on the second point. Can you spell out a reasoned argument for why the House and Senate are both required if both share the same constituency?

And remind me again, whats your position on ending the filibuster?


And while we're discussing repeal of Amendments, THREE CHEERS to the 21st Amendment, the reconciliation of the 18th! The end of prohibition has a birthday today!
This was also the only Amendment thus are that was expressly designed to repeal another.

I can think of 2 more we need to repeal. 16th and 17th.

stebo0728 wrote:Can you spell out a reasoned argument for why the House and Senate are both required if both share the same constituency?

Because the constituency doesn't matter nearly as much as the proportion, and never has. Two senators, N representatives, where N is directly tied to the population of a State.

stebo0728 wrote:And remind me again, whats your position on ending the filibuster?

A conservative position (note the small "c"): until someone convinces me that we'd get a lot of good out of eliminating it entirely, versus reforming it, I'm gonna stick with the status quo.

IBCoupe wrote: Because the constituency doesn't matter nearly as much as the proportion, and never has. Two senators, N representatives, where N is directly tied to the population of a State.

This is where I really don't get you. I get what you're saying, I don't get how you get off saying it. I can't decide if you deny the shift in constituency, or if you embrace it. Or do you deny that there is even a separate interest set in question? Are you naive enough to believe that the state legislations and the states people share the exact same interest set? If the people weren't being properly represented, the solution would be to restructure the body which was designed to do so, not convert another.

IBCoupe wrote: A conservative position (note the small "c"): until someone convinces me that we'd get a lot of good out of eliminating it entirely, versus reforming it, I'm gonna stick with the status quo.

A good position. I wonder what you're position would be had we already eliminated it 80 years ago, and some forum kook started talking about reversing it.