Rand Paul's Filibuster

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

     




    Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

     

     



    If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

     

    Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

    There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

     



    Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

     

    Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

     

     

     



    The collective makes rules for its individual members.  

     

     



    The individuals make rules for how to behave in the collective.

     

    There is no intelligence in the collective.  It is always the intelligence of an individual.  There is always a deciding "vote", even if that vote is one.

    In fact, collectives always end up being one individual foisting their will on the..."collective".

     



    Paul had the right to cast a vote - instead of using it he tried to block all other "individuals" from casting theirs.  For a self-professed constitutionalist, that's the exact opposite of what the Congress was supposed to be.

     

     

     



    Part of the process.  USed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

     

    But, when it is your ox being gored, well, all of a sudden you have an issues with it.




    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Rand Paul won points with his hard core Libertarians Tea Partiers and the college crowd tired of the same old Dem story and those supporting the wild west on the internet.

    I'm not sure what this means for a restructured GOP; it could be a distraction or a big problem with the 2016 cycle.

     



    It has been speculated that Paul would be the most conservative candidate ever nominated for the presidency, if indeed it happens.  And that's not just hyperbole.  Even in the far right's stulted idiom, he's no "RINO".

    Funny though how the son is receiving such hero-worship from the right his father never did.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

     




    Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

     

     



    If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

     

    Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

    There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

     



    Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

     

    Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

     

     

     



    The collective makes rules for its individual members.  

     

     



    The individuals make rules for how to behave in the collective.

     

    There is no intelligence in the collective.  It is always the intelligence of an individual.  There is always a deciding "vote", even if that vote is one.

    In fact, collectives always end up being one individual foisting their will on the..."collective".

     



    Paul had the right to cast a vote - instead of using it he tried to block all other "individuals" from casting theirs.  For a self-professed constitutionalist, that's the exact opposite of what the Congress was supposed to be.

     

     

     



    Part of the process.  USed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

     

    But, when it is your ox being gored, well, all of a sudden you have an issues with it.

     




     

    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     



    Really? Do you have evidence to support that statement?

    my guess is that imover e even than you suggest over time.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



    There is nothing in the constitution frowning on or preventing the filibuster..but that doesn't mean that people can't have valid issues about it. I happen to be in favor of this type of filibuster. I am also in favor of eating chocolate or drinking coffee..but that doesn't mean those things aren't harmful if used in excess. Same thing with the filibuster. I think it is a useful tool..but not something that should be used in a cavalier and partisan way.

     

    Like him or not..Rand Paul had a valid message and wanted a forum and a captive audience to listen to him.  Using a filibuster to just talk nonsense or jibberish in order to prevent a vote is wrong. Secret or procedural filibusters are even worse.

    And..please..it use of the filibuster is not a left/right thing. They both do it. Naturally..one's opinion on the filibuster is to depend on whether or not they actually agree with the legislation up for vote or not.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     



    Facepalm

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

     




    Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

     

     



    If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

     

    Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

    There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

     



    Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

     

    Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

     

     

     



    The collective makes rules for its individual members.  

     

     



    The individuals make rules for how to behave in the collective.

     

    There is no intelligence in the collective.  It is always the intelligence of an individual.  There is always a deciding "vote", even if that vote is one.

    In fact, collectives always end up being one individual foisting their will on the..."collective".

     



    Paul had the right to cast a vote - instead of using it he tried to block all other "individuals" from casting theirs.  For a self-professed constitutionalist, that's the exact opposite of what the Congress was supposed to be.

     

     

     



    Part of the process.  USed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

     

    But, when it is your ox being gored, well, all of a sudden you have an issues with it.

     




     

    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Really? Do you have evidence to support that statement?

     

    my guess is that imover e even than you suggest over time.



    Evidence like this?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.



    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     



    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     

     



     

    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     



    Yet you complain the filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     

     



     

    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     

     



    Yet you complain the filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening. 

     



    That's true - I don't get your point.  Great Britain has Parliamentary supremacy.  We have a Constitution.  The rules of the Senate cannot Constitutionally prevent Senators from voting, as they often do today.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     

     



     

    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     

     



    Yet you complain the filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening. 

     

     



     

    That's true - I don't get your point.  Great Britain has Parliamentary supremacy.  We have a Constitution.  The rules of the Senate cannot Constitutionally prevent Senators from voting, as they often do today.

     



    Obviously it can...through filibuster. That was easy. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     

     



     

    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     

     



    Yet you complain the filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening. 

     

     



     

    That's true - I don't get your point.  Great Britain has Parliamentary supremacy.  We have a Constitution.  The rules of the Senate cannot Constitutionally prevent Senators from voting, as they often do today.

     

     



    Obviously it can...through filibuster. That was easy. 

     



    Pointless statements usually are easy.  I'm arguing the filibuster in unconstitutional - you're response is it must be constitutional, because they're doing it.

    Have you ever heard of the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate - it's also referred to as the "Constitutional Option"?  Essentially, the majority leader declares the filibuster unconstitutional, and passes a bill with majority vote.  It could happen at any time - if there's one area where the Dems really are to blame for the shape of the country, it's refusing to go this route in the face of dishonest opposition.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     

     



     

    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     

     



    Yet you complain the filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening. 

     

     



     

    That's true - I don't get your point.  Great Britain has Parliamentary supremacy.  We have a Constitution.  The rules of the Senate cannot Constitutionally prevent Senators from voting, as they often do today.

     

     



    Obviously it can...through filibuster. That was easy. 

     

     



    Pointless statements usually are easy.  I'm arguing the filibuster in unconstitutional - you're response is it must be constitutional, because they're doing it.

     

    Have you ever heard of the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate - it's also referred to as the "Constitutional Option"?  Essentially, the majority leader declares the filibuster unconstitutional, and passes a bill with majority vote.  It could happen at any time - if there's one area where the Dems really are to blame for the shape of the country, it's refusing to go this route in the face of dishonest opposition.

     



    So congress allows unconstitutional procedures? Yeah....not likely.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     

     



     

    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     

     



    Yet you complain the filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening. 

     

     



     

    That's true - I don't get your point.  Great Britain has Parliamentary supremacy.  We have a Constitution.  The rules of the Senate cannot Constitutionally prevent Senators from voting, as they often do today.

     

     



    Obviously it can...through filibuster. That was easy. 

     

     



    Pointless statements usually are easy.  I'm arguing the filibuster in unconstitutional - you're response is it must be constitutional, because they're doing it.

     

    Have you ever heard of the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate - it's also referred to as the "Constitutional Option"?  Essentially, the majority leader declares the filibuster unconstitutional, and passes a bill with majority vote.  It could happen at any time - if there's one area where the Dems really are to blame for the shape of the country, it's refusing to go this route in the face of dishonest opposition.

     

     



    So congress allows unconstitutional procedures? Yeah....not likely.

     



    U.S. vs Balin

    The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the Board's decision, and establishing unambiguously that when quorum is present, votes of a majority of that quorum are sufficient to pass a bill in Congress.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     

     



     

    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     

     



    Yet you complain the filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening. 

     

     



     

    That's true - I don't get your point.  Great Britain has Parliamentary supremacy.  We have a Constitution.  The rules of the Senate cannot Constitutionally prevent Senators from voting, as they often do today.

     

     



    Obviously it can...through filibuster. That was easy. 

     

     



    Pointless statements usually are easy.  I'm arguing the filibuster in unconstitutional - you're response is it must be constitutional, because they're doing it.

     

    Have you ever heard of the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate - it's also referred to as the "Constitutional Option"?  Essentially, the majority leader declares the filibuster unconstitutional, and passes a bill with majority vote.  It could happen at any time - if there's one area where the Dems really are to blame for the shape of the country, it's refusing to go this route in the face of dishonest opposition.

     

     



    So congress allows unconstitutional procedures? Yeah....not likely.

     

     



     

    U.S. vs Balin

    The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the Board's decision, and establishing unambiguously that when quorum is present, votes of a majority of that quorum are sufficient to pass a bill in Congress.

     



    Lawsuit Claiming Filibuster Unconstitutional Dismissed

    Hans von Spakovsky

    December 21, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    (8)

     

    Today, District of Columbia federal Judge Emmett Sullivan dismissed the frivolous lawsuitfiled by Common Cause and Representatives Mike Michaud (D–ME), Hank Johnson (D–GA), John Lewis (D–GA), and Keith Ellison (D–MN) claiming that the Senate’s rule on filibustering is somehow unconstitutional. They were also joined by three illegal aliens who claimed they were “denied a path to American citizenship because of the repeated Senate filibusters of the House-passed DREAM Act.”

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     



    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Right side of argument according to who?

     

     



    A constitutionalist with intellectual integrity.

     

     

     



    I see nothing in the constitution preventing or even frowning on the filibuster rule.

     

    i seem to remember some key appointments in the Bush administration that were blocked.  I also seem to remember a bunch of filibusters trying to get Bush to stop spending.

    i don't recollect the left being up in arms about the filibuster then.

     



     

    The filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening.  If you're down 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth, you can't stop your team from losing by refusing to throw a pitch.

     

     

     



    Is the filibuster a parliamentary procedure? Yes or no.

     

     



     

    I'd say the filibuster as Rand Paul used it is a parliamentary procedure.   It would be dis-ingenuous to suggest that the anonymous blocking of votes without so much as clearing your throat, as we've seen in recent years, is consistent with parliamentary procedure.

    Either way, your question is irrelevant, as parliamentary procedure has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

     

     



    Yet you complain the filibuster prevents everything the Constitution says about our legislative process from happening. 

     

     



     

    That's true - I don't get your point.  Great Britain has Parliamentary supremacy.  We have a Constitution.  The rules of the Senate cannot Constitutionally prevent Senators from voting, as they often do today.

     

     



    Obviously it can...through filibuster. That was easy. 

     

     



    Pointless statements usually are easy.  I'm arguing the filibuster in unconstitutional - you're response is it must be constitutional, because they're doing it.

     

    Have you ever heard of the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate - it's also referred to as the "Constitutional Option"?  Essentially, the majority leader declares the filibuster unconstitutional, and passes a bill with majority vote.  It could happen at any time - if there's one area where the Dems really are to blame for the shape of the country, it's refusing to go this route in the face of dishonest opposition.

     

     



    So congress allows unconstitutional procedures? Yeah....not likely.

     

     



     

    U.S. vs Balin

    The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, upholding the Board's decision, and establishing unambiguously that when quorum is present, votes of a majority of that quorum are sufficient to pass a bill in Congress.

     

     



     

    Lawsuit Claiming Filibuster Unconstitutional Dismissed

    Hans von Spakovsky

    December 21, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    (8)

     

    Today, District of Columbia federal Judge Emmett Sullivan dismissed the frivolous lawsuitfiled by Common Cause and Representatives Mike Michaud (D–ME), Hank Johnson (D–GA), John Lewis (D–GA), and Keith Ellison (D–MN) claiming that the Senate’s rule on filibustering is somehow unconstitutional. They were also joined by three illegal aliens who claimed they were “denied a path to American citizenship because of the repeated Senate filibusters of the House-passed DREAM Act.”

     



    I guess if parliamentary procedure trumps the Constitution, then Hans von Spakovsky can trump the Supreme Court.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Have you ever heard of the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate - it's also referred to as the "Constitutional Option"?  Essentially, the majority leader declares the filibuster unconstitutional, and passes a bill with majority vote.



    Eh? Couldn't they just change the rules?

     

     

    The only declaring about the constitution that has any validity coming from that lot is when they pass an amendment.



    They can change the rules by majority vote on the first day of the session.  Any other attempt could be filibustered.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    Imagine how different the Senate Rules would look if we didn't have a two-party system.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

     




    Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

     

     



    If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

     

    Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

    There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

     



    Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

     

    Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

     

     

     



    The collective makes rules for its individual members.  

     

     



    The individuals make rules for how to behave in the collective.

     

    There is no intelligence in the collective.  It is always the intelligence of an individual.  There is always a deciding "vote", even if that vote is one.

    In fact, collectives always end up being one individual foisting their will on the..."collective".

     



    Paul had the right to cast a vote - instead of using it he tried to block all other "individuals" from casting theirs.  For a self-professed constitutionalist, that's the exact opposite of what the Congress was supposed to be.

     

     

     



    Part of the process.  USed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

     

    But, when it is your ox being gored, well, all of a sudden you have an issues with it.

     




     

    Republicans are far worse offenders, but I don't care who uses it - it's an embarrassment.  If you ever plan to whine on about executive orders or gun control being unconstitutional, you might want to get on the right side of this argument.

     

     



    Really? Do you have evidence to support that statement?

     

    my guess is that imover e even than you suggest over time.

     



    Evidence like this?

     



    Yah, I ran across that as well.  Get into the details of what a filibuster is, and isn't, and you see how that chart dis false.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    Ron Paul grandstands on a non issue.  He accomplished nothing but getting his name mentioned on the news and wasting tax payer money.  Another republican hypocrite.

    i think its interesting that they are concerned about using drones to take out US citizens in the US, but make no mention about using drones to take out non-citizens, maybe along the Mexican Border.  How a drone can tell the difference between a Citizen and alien is a bit of a mystery.  

     

Share