Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
As time has gone on, the public has tired of politicians that do not do what they have promised, and filibustering is part of that.
Those who agree with filibustering feel that it is an important way for politicians to block bills they are very concerned about or that they believe would be seriously harmful to the public. There is no argument that protecting the public is what politicians really should be doing, but the problem lies in the opinion of the politicians and whether they are actually doing what is right for the public, or what they think is right for the public. In other words, how is their level of objectivity when it comes to the bills they filibuster? Are they really deeply concerned about the public, or are they only focused on the level of control they have and what they think is correct? Those are questions that are very important to consider, and they are the same kinds of questions that are asked by those who do not believe filibustering is a good idea. The idea behind a filibuster is to prevent the passage of bad legislation, but it also prevents "good" legislation from getting through if even one politician has a very strong opinion and stance against it (Binder & Smith, 1996). Because that is the case, there is a serious lack of checks and balances used when filibustering is allowed. Stopping politicians from having the right to filibuster may allow some legislation to get through that some politicians do not like, but it would also keep the process of passing bills and making laws moving forward, which allows society and its laws to grow and develop.
In short, a filibuster comes out of the desire...
Unfortunately, that desire to stop a piece of legislation is based solely on the opinion of that politician. He or she can listen to the people in the district or area he or she serves, but that does not guarantee the politician will follow the opinions or desires of those people. Instead, the politician may decide there is a better way, or that the people he or she serves are "misguided" in the sense that they do not have a complete understanding of the piece of legislation. If that is the opinion of the politician, there is a higher likelihood of a filibuster. At some point, other politicians can work to stop a filibuster, but that takes floor time (Koger, 2010). A politician who is working to filibuster something will often switch off to other business when he or she realizes that other politicians are moving to stop the filibuster (Binder & Smith, 1996). This technique usually works, because it takes up enough time to stop a bill from getting through and forces the politicians to move on to something else (Koger, 2010). With that as the central issue, filibustering is effective. However, that does not mean it is a good idea or that is serves the best interests of the public.
References
Binder, Sarah a. & Smith, Steven S. (1996). Politics or Principle: Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Koger, Gregory (2010). Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lazare, Daniel (1996). The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy. Harcourt.
The ultimate House vote was two hundred and twenty to two hundred and seven. The senate vote was fifty three to forty three. The republicans were collectively opposed in both chambers (3 June 2010, B3). The Future of the Health Care Bill Subsequent to disagreements as political enemies for more than a year, the Obama administration and the health insurance industry realized that they require one another. Both have huge stakes in
American History Final Exam Stages of the American Empire Starting in the colonial period and continuing up through the Manifest Destiny phase of the American Empire in the 19th Century, the main goal of imperialism was to obtain land for white farmers and slaveholders. This type of expansionism existed long before modern capitalism or the urban, industrial economy, which did not require colonies and territory so much as markets, cheap labor and
validity, and for school administrators Goldstein's points should be discussed and debated. Goldstein suggests that without violating students' privacy rights, instructors / teachers nationwide need to be far more alert to weirdness, aggressiveness, "creepiness," Nazi-related hatefulness, "Fierce racism" and homophobia. Students that have obsessive video game habits -- with a daily dose of violent games like "Grand Theft Auto" -- are potentially antisocial individuals that need to be watched (Whiteman,
C. By Michael Shively (June, 2005), the first hate crime laws were enacted during the sixties, seventies, and eighties. The first states to pass hate crime legislation were Oregon and Washington in 1981. The first federal hate crime legislation, Shively explains, was debated in 1985, and the first federal statute related to hate crimes was the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, passed in 1990. Subsequent to that Act, other pieces of
Philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga explains that the argument -- "If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good, He would have created the best of all possible worlds" -- is not satisfactory at all. "How, indeed, could one argue, from the existence of evil that it is unlikely God exists?" (Plantinga, 1974, 61). We have every reason to believe that "…all natural evils have perfectly natural causes," Plantinga quotes from Cornman and
While there may be rational and ethical objections to killing a nearly fully developed fetus, there are none that pertain logically to terminating a pregnancy that is only hours old, much less for preventing a pregnancy that has not even occurred. Religious beliefs and values may be perfect justifications for such decisions on a personal level; however, they cannot ever be allowed to impose those values on others who