Filibuster history: How one small rule change in 1806 started it all

Here's what you need to know about the legislative process to delay, delay, delay, beginning with the rule change in 1806 that started it all. Read more: wapo.st/2PHQOEh. Subscribe to The Washington Post on KZbin: wapo.st/2QOdcqK
Follow us:
Twitter: / washingtonpost
Instagram: / washingtonpost
Facebook: / washingtonpost
#WashingtonPost #Filibuster #Senate

[@anonymoushuman8443]

Too many rules. No wonder nothing significant gets done these days

[@timothyroatenberry1274]

Agreed 100%, the problem is, rules are for us , not them in our government !!

[@omegabat39]

Yep. It's to divided.

[@Eugene19877]

That’s democracy for ya. Democracy is hard and the founding father purposely made things slow so that there wouldn’t be an abuse of power.

[@andrewmaddox9786]

It surprises me how few Americans realize that our entire system was designed for gridlock. Yes, it’s supposed to be difficult for major changes to occur. The founders never wanted the 51% cramming down their will on the other 49%. We are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. We need unanimity to make big changes.

[@joshhutch3525]

No it wasn’t designed for gridlock when it comes to passing legislation through Congress. Nothing in the original constitution mentions a supermajority for closing debate on bills - only for very serious things like impeachment, overriding a veto, and making amendments. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was one of the first founders to write about the potential drawbacks of giving the minority so much power. Like the video states, the filibuster came about unintentionally - its essentially a loophole that has been abused for 100+ years that Congress is too scared to do away with now. It was not the founders will.

[@Spiral.Dynamics]

It was designed to protect the minority rule. It just happens at this point what the minority wants is to end voting if you’re a democrat.

[@jerry_phillips]

@@joshhutch3525 It may have come later but it aligns with the intentions of the founders preference for a democratic republic. It aligns with the purpose of the electoral college and whole point of the senate. The house represents the population and the senate represents the states. Major legislation requires major buy-in. As closely split as are the house and senate there is a clear mandate for bi-partisan compromise.

[@joshhutch3525]

@@jerry_phillips No it doesn’t lol, this was never the founder’s intention in any way. I swear people are just making up history to justify the filibuster. While the representation is obviously more state based in the senate, it was always intended to be a simple majority vote on legislation except for scenarios explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. The fillibuster is nothing but a loophole both sides have been using for 100 years to block legislation.

[@Lkjhgf5482]

The filibuster was not designed by anyone. Other countries work just fine with 51% passing laws, and states do too. No states have a filibuster, 51% passes and becomes law unless the governor vetoes.

[@gchat9906]

I should clarify a few things: 1. Good or bad is subjective. 2. If a bill is stopped at the senate, by definition, it has not got the support of a huge majority and is disliked by a substantial minority. 3. Passage of controversial bills should not be easy to begin with. 4. If the bill has support of 60% of the senators it can be passed by enforcing cloture.

[@jamesdockery7806]

While passage of controversial bills shouldn’t be easy, they also shouldn’t be completely obstructed by the minority. Even the Founding Fathers disliked arbitrary supermajorities, which is why they explicitly described in the Constitution what things need a supermajorities. For example, constitutional amendment or impeachment convictions need supermajorities. They did not intend for legislation to need supermajorities.

[@xerbersucker69]

Good or bad is not subjective

[@NoelAWinslow]

2. Presumes a functioning system absent of corruption. In a corrupt system, which all systems tend towards, a single senator can block 59 other sentators. That's different from "not the support of a huge majority" and "disliked by a substantial minority" (59% of Congress is a huge majority relative to 1% minority. 59 times huger, in fact).

[@gchat9906]

@@NoelAWinslow if it's just one percent or an insignificant minority then that senator(s) would be voted out in the next election and the bill would be passed. But it seldom happens. You're deluded if you think these bills are not controversial. Also you are ignoring the fact that they have the option of cloture.

[@gchat9906]

@@jamesdockery7806 Thank God that USA is not a democracy but a Republic. The whole point of a representative based federal system is that the majority should not be able to torture the minority.

[@alysoneaston5539]

Cruz read a book by seuss????

[@thecrippledpancake9455]

Now I’ve seen it all, feel like if I did that people would talk about it for the rest of my life

[@benjaminsmith8058]

People thought that Dr. Seuss is racist....

[@kircinnamon8496]

@@benjaminsmith8058 *was

[@exclamationpointman3852]

Ted Cruz spoke for 21 HOURS???????? Respect.

[@aviramvijh]

What sort of nonsense is this....another quintessential 'American' practice that people feel is required because America is unique.

[@LaJuera25]

I like how you put only republicans as she narrates “delay” and “obstructions” nice non-partisan reporting there Washington Post. 🙄

[@fairygrammy]

This really helped. 😊

[@bossmadammoose1948]

To abolish the Filibuster in the US Senate, try to use the Johnson Treatment in order to have votes in favour of abolishing that rule.

[@-_.Nameyourcatdog._-]

We’re not a democracy. We’re a republic. I thought she went to Harvard?

[@14dwebb]

republics are a form of a democracy as we, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECT OUR REPRESENTATIVES. republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@14dwebb agree, we are both. countries can be one, both, or neither.

[@du42bz]

Are you brain dead. Democracy is a part of a republic. So if the US is a republic, they are also a democracy

[@THCMusicBlog]

@@du42bz lol you clearly don't know wtf you're talking about. not all republics are democratic and vise versa.

[@THCMusicBlog]

@@14dwebb no theyre not lol. republics are a particular structure of government. A country can either be a monarchy or a republic, regardless of how democratic it is

[@j.d.b.pennamesonofharraant3367]

I yield I'm done talking ... Gonna sign vetos now

[@actinganimal885]

The filibuster seems like a useful tool in the mind of a libertarian. The more the senate stalls itself the smaller the government is for that length of time. Leaving the people free from legislators for that length of time until whatever law is passed thus tightening the grip the government has on the people every day. Remember America is a republic at the core and there is democracy woven around it, but a government of the people for the people is slowly being lost. There’s a reason the parties got there names, republicans and democrats.

[@KD-vg2yn]

A government of the people for the people is a democratic slogan, not a republic slogan. 😂 the republic version would be, elected by the people to do whatever they want to do and the people suffer the consequences

[@goblinslayer2799]

Raiden brought me here

[@jacobclark89]

This is untinkable ! Shall we just forget all the good things it has done for America ? We're would we be with out the legendary historical Rand paul ,Don't drone me bro filabuster that what was parmount in protecting America ? I wouldn't want to live in that world !

[@SA_Rocket]

2:40 thats Sergey Lavrov

[@nancyranft4801]

I would like to know why this post says there are 18 comments but I see only 6! Where are the other 12 comments? Were they deleted? If so, by whom and for what reason? Inquiring minds...

[@nmarbletoe8210]

Try clicking "newest first" -- more show up!

[@jamestateIII]

All responses to comments such as this one count as comments as well.

[@nancytaylor5569]

I’m unsure why setting aside the filibuster is called a nuclear option, as it’s done fairly regularly.

[@floatpvnk]

I didn’t know this was a thing in our government until watching a fundie fridays on Ted Cruz where he discussed how Cruz did one where he read green eggs and ham. Others he mentioned where senators would read or sing things to fill time. I figured these were a few hours at most until one of them ordered a piss bucket during his insanely long speech.

[@troyfrei2962]

Keep in mind that both Senator Byrd and Thurmond were both Democrats in 1964 when they used the Filibuster of the 1957,1964 time frame.

[@jamespiper6659]

Also keep in mind that Thurmond switched parties after Democrats actually passed the voting rights act because, as he said "Democrats no longer represent people like me."

[@troyfrei2962]

@@jamespiper6659 he also has a Black Daughter named Essia Mae Washington-Williams? Yes you are right he was a Democrat.

[@jamespiper6659]

I actually didn't know that thank you * *Quick Google search* * Ahh yes , secret daughter who he never recognized publicly. And still he hated civil rights so much that he left the Democratic party because of it. Presumably whistling Dixie as he joined the Republican rank-and-file.

[@troyfrei2962]

@@jamespiper6659 did you watch her videos ?

[@jrsands]

FYI - - The 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed with 80+% of Republicans voting for it. Democrats? Less than 70% voted in favor. - In 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed with 97% of Senate Republicans supporting it while 74% Senate Democrats supporting. In the House 85% of Republicans voted for it as did 80% Democrats. As a percentage of the parties more Republicans supported Civil Rights & Voting Rights than Democrats.

[@AYVYN]

When Laws primarily revoke rights and send your money abroad, this is a safety-net.

[@jjs8426]

Hamilton got what was coming for him

[@knightwatchman]

DEMOCRAT Senators Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, William Fulbright and Sam Ervin started the filibuster to stop Civil Rights legislation in March 1964, and it would last for 60 days. The Civil Rights Act passed in June 1964 and signed into law July 2, 1964. NOT 1967 as the narrator said. Geez WP .... get your information right.

[@haydenrussell6382]

Actually, Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party around this time. So did many southern Democrats.

[@Spiral.Dynamics]

And? What’s your point?

[@patrickpersianni5314]

Yep and a lot more

[@knightwatchman]

@@Spiral.Dynamics The point is ... a news organization should get an IMPORTANT date right.

[@knightwatchman]

@@haydenrussell6382 So what. Many politicians have switched parties. You can find a complete list on the internet.

[@Spirit529]

Of course it was Burr

[@justsayin...2784]

Just curious... Are there any example (other than fictional movies) where the fillibuster was used for any GOOD purpose? ...not sure I've seen any.

[@gouca6383]

its*

[@bodyshop6931]

So debate is not good?

[@KnowerofThings]

dislike button not good as well thats why youtube got rid of it. why care for opinions of the viewers . we are just an annoyance to them.

[@bodyshop6931]

@@KnowerofThings Dislike shows what the community believes. You would like to live in sunshine 24/7?

[@shocken90]

It shouldn't matter if you are a Democrat or a republican: a party that captures all three branches of government through democratic elections should have the right to enact legislation (as long as it is constitutional, of course). We already have a lot of checks and balances in our government. If the founders wanted the minority party to block everything, they would have included the filibuster. However, it is not a part of the constitution. The end result is an astounding level of political gridlock. Elections don't matter, bc even if you win, you cannot enact the legislation you desire. A good political system has to bend with the times. If it becomes too rigid, it will snap.

[@KnowerofThings]

shut up you fascist

[@knightwatchman]

The Senate has to be a body of legislators who use debate, reason, experience and wisdom to pass legislation. That is what the Founding Fathers intended because they expected the rabble of the House to pass legislation on a whim and without debate. Yes, the filibuster is not in the Constitution, but it's been a Senate rule since 1806 and amended as a rule in 1917. So as early as 1806, when a number of Founding Fathers were still around, the rule was made so the Senate would not become the legislative body the House was. Up until 1914 Senators were not elected by the people. They were chosen by their state legislators who chose the leading statesmen from their state. The Senate has to be the body that determines whether legislation passed by the House has merit and won't be challenged in court if signed into law.

[@shocken90]

@@knightwatchman That's the thing: there is no true debate if the minority party will never ever bring the bill to the floor in the first place. What's the sense in having a debate or compromise when if you already know the outcome is a dead bill? I know that the Senate isn't a 'rowdy' bunch like the House, but it was never intended on passing NOTHING. When the Senate fails to pass any legislation, democracy fails because the majority of people lose faith in the process. I know the theory, but practically demands a significant change.

[@knightwatchman]

@@shocken90 I watched the debate session yesterday and there was debate back and forth. Even some Q&A between senators. I found that refreshing. Not like in the House where they grandstand. Plus ... there is really no minority party in the Senate. It's 50/50. Well ... Sanders is an Independent but we know his leanings. I know it was never intended on passing nothing, but it did recently pass the (true) Infrastructure Bill.

[@Spiral.Dynamics]

🤫 that makes too much sense.

[@ankra12]

Sounds like something that needs to be gone.

[@telmagarcia4620]

Justhcia

[@telmagarcia4620]

De cenado criminal

[@telmagarcia4620]

Boten of

[@denisejacks6109]

NO THE MINORITY IS RUNNING THINGS!! NOT THE MIJORTY!!

[@austinnichols8671]

First, I just wanna point out that the Senate is split perfectly 50/50 so passing democratic legislation right now should be difficult. Why? Because 50 people and a side woman shouldn't be able to decide our Republics route when 50 other people disagree, not to mention the house which is only gonna stay democratic for about 6-5 more months so stfu about the 'Minority' deciding things because the aren't they are simply stopping a aggressive, radical, shifting majority who is poised to lose, have a bice day 🙃🙃🙃

[@telmagarcia4620]

Boten fraude

[@j-marie4006]

I can't stand narrators with wimpy voices. If you're narrating something put a little life into it.

[@KnowerofThings]

forgive them. they are soy drinking vegans

[@exclamationpointman3852]

She is a woman!!!!

[@meauzewe]

Put it to the National vote!?

[@shrox]

i think filibuster shud b there.. any new rule shud pass only if more people think the new law is good for more people

[@Sataka23clips]

Is it me or most of these are democrats

[@douglasconnolly6357]

Sigh, the more I learn about the filibuster and even the Senate itself, the more I feel like declaring independence from Great Britain was a mistake. I wish we had a parliamentary system!!!

[@maximos905]

Damn you sound brainwashed

[@nancytaylor5569]

The filibuster is horridly outdated and must end now. Our democracy depends on this!

[@Average_handle69]

Gay

[@jebremocampo9194]

The deadlock in the Senate is why we need the Senate!

[@rebelrouzer5318]

*TotallynotaSithLordPalpatine has entered the chat*

[@thesword-sapdog322]

When both parties "Filibuster" on an issue and it "stays on the table for years", that's "Price Fixing"

[@bossmadammoose1948]

The Senate of the Philippines need a Filibuster and Cloture rule

[@zoecunningham3019]

Reform if not eliminate

[@paulstatz5188]

My Father and a relative from a suburban DC were talking about the phillibuster and agreed it was holding up any legislation This was back in the Mixon

[@SimonZimmermann82]

Urgh. I accidentally clicked on bezos propaganda Channel... Bye