Civics Lesson: Can someone explain.....

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Filibuster---in layman's terms? What is it--what is it's purpose...does it accomplish anything...is it just a statement?

Please don't turn it into a debate--they talk about filibusters on the news--and I am just comprehending what exactly that means.

Thanks.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Okay--just looked it up---it's a debate, right?


(Ironic when I requested to not debate it LOL).

 

[monarchsfan16]

I actually thought it was a delay to keep people from being able to vote. It may result in debate.

 

[Cheap-n-Dale]

Opposing parties have the write to speak on the floor of the senate and not yield. They therefore can talk forever if they want, effectively bringing the debate to a halt, and killing the legislation. They can talk about anything. In times past they would read the bible, or the Metro DC phone book. It doesn't matter. Nowadays, I think they just threaten fillibuster, and that does the trick.

 

[bicker]

President Bush recently put it quite well: "The promise of democracy is fulfilled by minority rights." In the same vein, Senator Robert Byrd said, "In American politics, the House of Representatives enshrines majority rule. The Senate has a different tradition. It is the forum for minorities, where we can have dissent on the part of a minority." That really summarizes the need for fillibuster, as a balance against tyranny of the majority.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So basically--either side can use (or threaten) fillibuster--and it is effectively a "strike" saying we will just sit here and do anything but allow you to do XYZ?

Does that make sense (I have no idea who's fillibustering who--so I'm really asking in an unbiased way).

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

President Bush recently put it quite well: "The promise of democracy is fulfilled by minority rights." In the same vein, Senator Robert Byrd said, "In American politics, the House of Representatives enshrines majority rule. The Senate has a different tradition. It is the forum for minorities, where we can have dissent on the part of a minority." That really summarizes the need for fillibuster, as a balance against tyranny of the majority.

So you can't fillibutser in the House?

(Edited: Obviously I mean fillibuster--but the typo is too funny to fix).

 

[Sparx]

My geography teacher explained it as a speech that delayed voting on a subject, and said that someone filibustered for almost two days once, and it worked. I dunno though.

 

[bicker]

That's correct: No fillibuster in the House of Representatives.

It is important to keep in mind that a 2/3 majority of the Senate can terminate a fillibuster. Our system protects us against both tyranny of the majority AND tyranny of the minority.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's correct: No fillibuster in the House of Representatives.

It is important to keep in mind that a 2/3 majority of the Senate can terminate a fillibuster. Our system protects us against both tyranny of the majority AND tyranny of the minority.

Interesting--

Thanks for you expertise!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

And thank you to everyone else, too!