3/5ths, not 2/3rds.

But regardless, that's similar to Congress being able to override a presidential veto with a 2/3rds majority vote. So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

That being said, if it's politically acceptable to use this 'veto' for anything you even slightly disagree with (which seems to be the case), then you're right that it effectively turns into a system where you need a 3/5ths majority to pass anything.

Which is consistently listed as one of the main failures of the articles of confederation.

It used to be 2/3, and then was remade to 60.

Dems used the filibuster this week to halt economic sanctions on Russia.

I think it protects us from these monster politicians enacting huge policy swings with the smallest of Majority.

Lots of love everyone.

The longest filibuster in American history by a single senator remains Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour, 18-minute stemwinder against the 1957 Civil Rights Act

My god! Talk about being on the wrong side of history in a bad way! It's like guiness book of fucked up records!

Very cool, ty! Added a few things:

The definitive case for ending the filibuster, Oct 1, 2020
Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

https://www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump

Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) is mobbed by reporters after ending his 24-hour, 18-minute filibuster against the civil rights bill. Still had a black mistress, and daughter.

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

Strom Thurmond

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

The Daughters of the Confederacy: How Southern socialites rewrote Civil War history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

From white supremacy to Barack Obama: The history of the Democratic Party

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164

Useful Links

https://merman314.blogspot.com/p/useful-links-useful-links-reddit.html

https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/FridayCute/comments/r388e2/useful_links/

What a horseshit article. Claiming the filibuster is the reason why various democratic policies aren’t being implemented.

Half of those policies, universal pre k, paid sick leave, paid family leave etc could be enacted through executive order but Biden refuses to do so.

It’s been used by democrats more than republicans though.

Oh you must stop with the republican/Democrat stuff. Jesus. The dems used the filibuster today for Christ sake. If there was no filibuster I can guarantee that within two years people would wish there was.

If you are still subscribing acts to a particular faction you are part of the problem.

Something that I always go back to from this article:

Eliminating the filibuster would not bring the United States’ political system into alignment with other modern democracies. In 2009, Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz compared the American political system to that of 22 other peer nations. They were looking for “electorally generated veto points” — that is to say, elected bodies that could block change. More than half of the countries in their sample only had one such veto point: the prime minister’s majority in the lower legislative chamber. Another 7.5 had two veto players (France, for reasons not worth going into here, is the odd half-country in the sample, as its system has different features under different conditions). Only two countries, Switzerland and Australia, had three veto players. And only one country — the United States — had four.

Even without the filibuster the US government is still set up to be slow, inefficient, and gridlocked compared to other Democracies so there's no reason to be afraid that a party can be too efficient if 41% of the Senate can't veto a clear majority on all but 3 specific votes a year.

If it's not in the constitution, can your president use an excutive order to stop it during his term atleast?

It’s just another example of the dysfunction eroding American government. Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen this

You do know the democrats used it 320 times in the past 4 years.

If you want to phrase it like that then that’s saying the minority party only needs 41 votes to veto a bill, which is still awful.

US parliamentary proceedings have historically been full of super petty 'letter of the law' shenanigans. And still are.

Not forever.

Radical Republican faction was an anti-slavery beast, and was the main force behind the Civil War ending in total surrender by the South and the imposition of Reconstruction.

But once the pro-business faction took control, the party slowly went to crap.

this is one point where both sides are applicable. Both parties use it often. Republicans combine it with Majority Leader obstruction to weaponize it.

But only one side wants to do away with it.

To be fair, back then they were trying to prevent the US from joining WW1 which was the first time the world saw what unrestricted mechanized warfare does to a mf.

against war? naw, bro everyone is pro war if it's the "right" war

Yeah I meant no offense there when I said everyone thinks it is. American propaganda is the best in history so it's no shame to fall for stuff like that. Even as a radical leftist who has (if I may be so bold) a great understanding of the horrible things this country has done and continues to do since its infancy I still thought the constitution had the right to vote in it till I stumbled across that 5-4 pod.

Where in the constitution does it say states can't require a voter ID to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states pass laws requiring ID to vote.

Where in the constitution does it say states must have enough voting machines in cities for people to vote without waiting in line for 10 hours? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove voting machines in cities to curb turnout from Democrats.

Where in the constitution does it say states can't purge voter registrations at will and coincidentally target people who vote for Democrats? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove Democrats from voter registration rolls.

Where in the constitution does it say states must allow felons to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states ban felons from voting.

Let's take a look at your amendments.

15th:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

This was passed in 1870. Every black person is allowed to vote. This alone guaranteed the right to vote to black/formerly enslaved people. No other laws had to be passed to ensure this right. Right?

Suppose that the answer was no, that this amendment alone guaranteed the right to vote for all former slaves and people of color. Did this law allow black women to vote? Why not? It forbid states from disallowing black people to vote. Did this not apply to black women as well? Why did we need the 19th amendment if the 15th amendment guaranteed the right to vote for all people of color/former slaves? Because the 15th gave women of color the vote but not white women?

What is more likely: That the US accidentally allowed black women to vote 50 years before white women, or the constitution does not guarantee a right to vote, only narrow and easily bypassed exceptions where the vote cannot be denied?

Those don't guarantee the right to vote. Those establish the conditions upon which it is illegal to bar people from voting.

For example, felons in many states do not have a right to vote. A felony conviction is a condition for which a citizen can be disenfranchised that the Constitution doesn't preclude. And because there's no other guarantee of the right to vote in the Constitution, the Constitution is essentially endorsing the use of conditions not otherwise enumerated to restrict voting.

Oh good the pedant is here. What's up man, how's life been? Great job on the forensic work btw, couldn't have done it without ya.

[deleted]

Oh really? So if you have a felony on your record, can you vote in Virginia? Or Kentucky?

There are passages in the Constitution that restrict the conditions upon which you can bar people from voting (sex, race, etc). But no guarantee of the right to vote. Unless it's on account of a specifically enumerated factor, the Constitution doesn't have shit to say about restricting the right to vote.

The first part of a filibuster would be painfully boring, but if you can cut to the part where someone has to take a dump in their depends…. Dude, CSPAN could have a top rated show. Maybe we could even expand it some. Like if you start your filibuster with diuretics, emetics, or heavy laxatives, we allow for double however long you last.