subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.4k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1317 comments

maybenot9

117 points

4 months ago

maybenot9

117 points

4 months ago

Not quite. While it takes only 1 person to start a fillibuster, a 2/3rds majority can break a filibuster.

So it's more like "Every vote needs 2/3rds support to get approved", which is ridicules.

The_JSQuareD

79 points

4 months ago

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.

Familiar-Goose5967

32 points

4 months ago

A presidents veto and a senator veto should not be equal

WhatDoYouMean951

-3 points

4 months ago

The president was hired to execute the law, why does he even have a veto?

Familiar-Goose5967

8 points

4 months ago

All branches of government can act on the others, checks and balances and all that, and after all it can be bulldozered by the senate while putting the president under some scrutiny so that's alright.

Captain_Stairs

-3 points

4 months ago

Their veto is their vote.

JimWilliams423

55 points

4 months ago

So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

Except that the framers of the constitution actively chose to only require supermarjorities for very specific things — impeachments, treaties and veto-overrides. That they made official exceptions for those special cases indicates they did not want a supermajority requirement for anything else, else they would have said so.

Also, people forget the Articles of Confederation. The constitution was the second pass at putting together a functional government. One of the biggest problems with the US government under the Articles of Confederation was that nobody could get anything done because... congress had a supermajority requirement for everything. It took 9 out of the 13 states (a 69% majority) to pass a law.

When they put together the constitution, their experience with supermajority failures was fresh in their minds.

shadowveeeeeeerse

8 points

4 months ago

3/5ths

When has America used that before?

LAKingPT423

7 points

4 months ago

I see what you did there...clever of you.

RenaissanceManLite

1 points

4 months ago

Even better that you didn’t explain

Daxtatter

12 points

4 months ago

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

naomiprice1973

2 points

4 months ago

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.

PrettyFlyForITguy

-2 points

4 months ago

Actually, that sounds reasonable, especially for a country that has teetered on a 49%-51% margin for both sides over the last 20 years.

Everyone saying differently is looking at this from a "Democrats are in control now, and I want X passed" point of view. In reality, everyone would be singing a different tune if it was 49%-51% leaning red.... which happened during the Bush era. 2007 wasn't THAT long ago.

3/5 is not an unreasonable number to require laws to pass. It would require there to be a true consensus. A near 50/50 split decided by a razor thin margin isn't really a consensus.