Harkin considers raising bill to end filibuster
nraclaptrap
By CHRISTINIA CRIPPES
Revenge could have been sweet.
The 1994 election saw a greater shift from Senate Democrats than
the 2006 shift from Republicans.
So, in 1995 as a member of the newly minority party, Sen. Tom
Harkin could have exacted revenge by offering to filibuster
Republicans at every turn. Instead, he pushed for reform.
Nearly 15 years ago, the Iowa senator first introduced
legislation that would end the Senate rule of filibuster, or
endlessly debating a bill until its ultimate demise. The bill
ultimately failed to pass the Senate by a vote of 76-19.
Given what he sees as the abuse of power by a couple members of
his own party whom he said are threatening to join the minority
party if their every demand is not met, Harkin is considering
reintroducing the legislation.
"I think, if anything, this health care debate is showing the
dangers of unlimited filibuster," Harkin said Thursday during a
conference call with reporters. "I think there's a reason for
slowing things down ... and getting the public aware of what's
happening and maybe even to change public sentiment, but not to
just absolutely stop something."
Harkin noted with interest that his original legislation was
cosponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who has been
threatening to filibuster the legislation. According to
www.filibusted.us, a Web site that tracks how lawmakers vote on
closing debate to avoid a filibuster, Harkin -- a member of the
majority party now -- has voted to end debate 32 of 34 times,
rather than filibuster. It said further he consistently votes to
end filibusters.
"I did a lot of research on this back in the '90s, and it turned
out the filibuster is just a Senate rule, not the Constitution or
anything like that," Harkin said. "The reason, as best as I can
ascertain it from historians that I talked to, Senate historians,
was that it came into being when the Senate ... would meet and
they would pass a bill before other senators could get there."
He said it became a rule that lawmakers could hold up the bill
until more senators were there to vote on it and with enough time
to make the public aware of the proposed legislation.
History lessons
The history turns out to be much trickier than that. Reports vary
in when and how the filibuster began and when it was first used.
One thing is for sure, the word originates from the Dutch word
for "pirate" and has come to mean the action in which a person
takes control of the debate by endlessly talking in an effort to
stall or kill the legislation.
The most famous example is probably in the realm of film where
Jimmy Stewart took the role of a new senator dismayed by a piece
of legislation and took to filibuster in Frank Capra's "Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington." The longest real-life filibuster was by
South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for more than
24 hours against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to the
Senate's history Web site.
In the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, two
constitutional scholars Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta said
filibustering began when then-Vice President Aaron Burr did not
see a need to call for an end to the debate, as holding it up was
not something that was done in the "dignified Senate."
"The Senate followed this advice but failed to impose any other
device by which debate might be restricted," the scholars wrote.
"Thus, by sheer oversight in 1806, the Senate opened itself to
the possibility of filibuster."
The scholars place the first filibuster in the 1830s, when
senators wanted to censure then-President Andrew Jackson for
withdrawing federal funds from the Bank of the United States.
Although not labeling it a "first," the Senate's history Web site
first mentions a debate in 1841 where one senator was accused of
trying to stop the "right to unlimited debate." The Senate Web
site said the issue was a bank bill, though the newsmagazine Time
said the first filibuster, which it also places in 1841, was over
the firing of Senate printers.
The exact rules for ending debate have changed over the years,
but now 60 votes are required to stop ongoing attempts to hold up
legislation through filibuster.
A new proposal
Regardless of its origins, Harkin said the filibuster has
outlived its usefulness.
"Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel
-- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours
-- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the
wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin
said.
He and the constitutional scholars agree that the intention was
never to hold up legislation entirely.
To keep the spirit of slowing down legislation, though, Harkin's
proposal back in 1995 would have kept the 60-vote rule for the
first vote but lessening the number required in subsequent votes.
He said for instance if 60 senators could not agree to end
debate, it would carry on for another week or so and then the
number of votes required to end debate would drop by three.
Harkin said it would carry on this way until it reached a simple
majority of 51 votes.
"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally
you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to
pass," Harkin said. "I may revive that. I pushed it very hard at
one time and then things kind of got a little better."
When Harkin first made his proposal, the New York Times wrote a
New Year's Day editorial in praise of the move.
"The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest
deliberative body," the editorial began. "The greatest
obstructive body is more like it. In the last session of
Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of
filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This
relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted
Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing
to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster.
Hooray for him."
The New York Times reran a version of the article in Thursday's
New York edition of the newspaper.
http://www.thehawkeye.com/print/harkin-filibuster-121209
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:hg6ccv$rjo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> gun group dumbass
Then get your dumb ass to a gun group that doesn't have the word POLITICS
in it's name...
Kinda like you should get a Constitutional amendment that doesn't have
the words A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A
FREE STATE as the fucking premise of the amendment...
talk.POLITICS.guns: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
[begin end to filibuster article]
By CHRISTINIA CRIPPES
History lessons
A new proposal
http://www.thehawkeye.com/print/harkin-filibuster-121209
[end end to filibuster article]
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:hg6f9o$l08$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>> gun group dumbass
>>
>> Then get your dumb ass to a gun group that doesn't have the word
>> POLITICS in it's name...
talk.POLITICS.guns
Looks like politics is right there in the name of the newsgroup - NOT
"GROUP" - NEWSGROUP!
When you've learned what a newsgroup is, go on to your next mistake.
> Why your dumb ass continues to debate the concept of a topic of a news
> group astounds me. You have dozens of groups who would be interested
> in your crap.
Just show us the TPG Charter, between-the-nuts.
> GO THERE
I like it here.
> you want to discuss: Kinda like you should get a Constitutional
> amendment that doesn't have
> the words A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF
> A FREE STATE as the fucking premise of the amendment...
What do you think the end of filibustering would do to the NRA's ability
to push their creepy-crazy legislation through Congress, punk?
Don't you boys claim "the guys with the guns make the rules"? If the
filibuster's ended, the guys with the most votes make the riles, and they
won't need 60 votes to get things done.
Even if you're too slow to recognize the revolution in legislating that
has now become likely, I do.
Next loon, please.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Harkin considers raising bill to end filibuster
Gun group, fatso.
nraclaptrap
news:aqndi5t0c6uakehq8...@4ax.com:
> Gun group, fatso.
Post your fucking charter or quit yer yappin, Lardloon.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Harkin considers raising bill to end filibuster
>
> Gun group, fatso.
LOL...look who's talking.
Get alot of exercise posting on Usenet?
Laugh...laugh....laugh...
TMT
Klaus Schadenfreude
It's only three words, lard-ass. Can't you figure it out?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Dec 14, 6:59�pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Harkin considers raising bill to end filibuster
>>
>> Gun group, fatso.
>
>LOL...look who's talking.
>
>Get alot of exercise...
...walking to Sunnyside Terrace? Haven't seen you there- how come?
___________
"I will be bringing the local cops with me to visit you so be sure you
have enough doughnuts for all of us. ;<)"
-Too Many Tools, 5/30/09
"Try posting your real address just once and I will
guarantee you a visit."
-Too Many Tools, 6/2/09, right before
he scrambled for excuses not to show up.
"Got a valid address yet winger?
I would like to arraign[sic] a visit for you."
-Too Many Tools, 6/19/09, still hoping
someone actually believes him.
"Give us a valid address and we can arraign a playdate with some
friends."
-Too Many Tools 7-1-2009 STILL trying to get
someone to believe him
"Show a picture of your mailbox then...with you in front of it. ;<)"
-Too Many Tools 7-2-2009 changing the conditions in
another desperate attempt to weasel out of visiting
"Provide the information and you will receive a visit."
-Too Many Tools, 9-16-2009, yet again making promises
he has no intention of keeping.
"Why don't you provide us with a valid name and address ...and we will
arrange a visit for you."
-Too Many Tools, 9-20-2009, yet *again* making promises
he has no intention of keeping.
nraclaptrap
news:f35e44ac-8388-4285...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 14, 4:46�pm, "betweentheeyes"
> <betweenthee...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote:
>> "nraclaptrap" <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9CE1A8E0185A8p...@216.196.97.131...
>>
>> > "betweentheeyes" <betweenthee...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote in
>> >news:hg6ccv$rjo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> >> gun group dumbass
>>
>> > Then get your dumb ass to a gun group that doesn't have the word
>> > POLITI
> CS
>> > in it's name...
>> <snip>
>> > NRACLAPTRAP
>>
>> Why your dumb ass continues to debate the concept of a topic of a
>> news gr
> oup
>> astounds me. �You have dozens of groups who would be interested in
>> your crap.
>>
>> GO THERE
>>
>> you want to discuss: Kinda like you should get a Constitutional
>> amendment that doesn't have
>> the words A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF
>> A FREE STATE as the fucking premise of the amendment...
>>
>> COME HERE
>>
>> it isn't difficult Harrison!
>
> Hey...I'm interested.
That's the first time I heard'em begging for it. Without filibuster
Republicans aka rightwingers will experience an exponential drop in
power, like when Republicans had a majority and refused to let Democrats
share in the legislating and overall governing, and forcing all those
extreme rightwing judges into the federal judiciary supposedly to help
promote a rightwing agenda.
Lucky for us the rightwing doesn't know how to delete incriminating data
on hard disks...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
Dance dance dance dance dance.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Lucky for us the rightwing doesn't know how to delete incriminating data
>on hard disks...
And the left does?
r wiley
"nraclaptrap" <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE1A8E0185A8p...@216.196.97.131...
> "betweentheeyes" <between...@defendingThe2nd.org> wrote in
> news:hg6ccv$rjo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>> gun group dumbass
>
> Then get your dumb ass to a gun group that doesn't have the word POLITICS
> in it's name...
>
> Kinda like you should get a Constitutional amendment that doesn't have
> the words A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A
> FREE STATE as the fucking premise of the amendment...
>
As long as decisions are made by judges who read, rather than "interpret"
the
Constitution, the Second Amendment will protect the right of the people to
keep
and bear arms satisfactorily.
rw
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Oh, look. Another nitwit who doesn't understand that it is the job of
the high court to "interpret the constitution".
r wiley
"5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote in message
news:O7GdnRC3GMKpL7rW...@posted.carinet...
No, the Supremes granted themseves that power, and nobody since
Andrew Jackson has had the balls to call their bluff.
rw
Phlip
>> Oh, look. Another nitwit who doesn't understand that it is the job of
>> the high court to "interpret the constitution".
>
> No, the Supremes granted themseves that power, and nobody since
> Andrew Jackson has had the balls to call their bluff.
Uh, the Constitution _says_ the Supreme court interprets the Constitution. "the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact". That
means if you think your judge mis-interpreted the Constitution ("to Law"), you
appeal up to...
Poetic Justice
The people... to change the law or Constitution, and the process starts
all over again.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Where does it say that?
Phlip
black letter law: "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as
to Law and Fact"
my ellipses was just a rhetorical artifact to avoid redundancy. Only an idiot
would finish the sentence with anything but "...the supreme Court".
The highest appellate court is the Supreme Court; all courts interpret the Law,
hence the SCOTUS is the final interpreter in the food chain.
I think some people's opinion on whether this interpretation is constitutional
varies based on whether they agree with it...
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Meet Poetic Justice. He's an idiot. You may have already noticed.
It's pretty much impossible to rule on the constitution without
interpreting it. Even something as seemingly unequivocal as "but no
religious test shall ever be required for any office or position of
public trust in these united States" is open to endless argument.
I would just -love- to see a simpleton like Poetic Justic explain the
constitution in a way that allowed for no debate about meaning.
RD (The Sandman)
news:wLSWm.98323$rE5....@newsfe08.iad:
His point is that it wasn't declared to be so until Marbury v Madison in
1803. At that point, the Supreme Court declared that power unto itself.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?