Why Bills Die in the U.S. Senate

[@iammrbeat]

Should the U.S. Senate get rid of the silent filibuster, ALL filibusters, or keep the rule the same? I'm curious to know your thoughts! Visit birchliving.com/mrbeat to get $400 off your Birch Luxe mattress plus two free pillows! I've been getting some pretty darn good sleep lately thanks to my new mattress. :)

[@simonalioto2647]

We should keep the filibuster

[@sirpillager27]

Aaron burr is not the man you wanna met

[@eliwilliams9206]

The filibuster is not the problem. Sure it would fix many things if we lowered it to 55, but not most things. The main problem is the divisions in the country which keep both parties from working with each other to build a better country

[@mckaystarr789]

Not only should it be kept, it should be made an official part of the constitution.

[@trinityknot8781]

@@night6724 we already have a system in place for that it’s called a veto also you know the Supreme Court

[@bulletmccarthur]

They saw the "Congress shall make no law" part in the constitution and stopped reading there.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Meanwhile, Article I Section 8: “Congress shall have power”

[@JVLeroy223]

Good one 👍

[@iammrbeat]

People always be cherry-picking

[@terrycoontz]

No congress definitely has an obligation to hear me or stop receiving my tax paying dollars. Lately have chosen the latter

[@matthewmencel5978]

STOp GASLIGHTING! your false god are ALWAYS passing laws.

[@JonBerry555]

At the very least the silent filibuster needs to end. If someone badly wants to block a bill, they should have to defend their position.

[@iammrbeat]

EXACTLY

[@bls8959]

@@iammrbeat They did...that bill wasn't for so called voting rights it's for a federal takeover of our elections...no thx

[@osurpless]

@@bls8959 Strom Thurmond no doubt believed similar during his filibuster over the Civil Rights Act decades ago. Not someone anyone should seek to emulate…

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@osurpless Yup. Worth remembering that the silent filibuster was created because the talking one was too damaging. Arguably, it was a mistake, but the fix is getting rid of it, not allowing a minority to block all Senate business in order to stop one law.

[@jurgnobs1308]

​@@osurpless yea it's annoying how people change their view on filibuster depending on who does it. I remember a few years ago, people cheered for a democrat state senator blocking something through filibuster. she was praised as a hero. and while I probably agreed with her position (I honestly can't remember what it was), I still hated it. because the filibuster is a problem in the system.

[@dylanwfilms]

I agree about ditching the silent filibuster, that way it actually requires doing something

[@LordSteeleCastleClashPsteele68]

And they must stay on topic no reading any Dr suess or shenanigans

[@moses4769]

Same, they should have to show up for work just like the rest of us.

[@JVLeroy223]

Motion to agree? Those in favor? Aye.

[@iammrbeat]

Exactly! Glad you agree with me. :)

[@organizedchaos4559]

@@LordSteeleCastleClashPsteele68 how do you determine stay 9n topic?

[@erikabutler6893]

In my opinion, after reading the Federalist 22 and Federalist 58, the existence of the so-called “silent filibuster” since the 1970s is a big reason why we are so divided currently. To give the minority the ability to block the majority with virtually zero effort has a toxic and divisive effect on politics, as both Madison and Hamilton agreed.

[@zandercruz3487]

>To give the minority the ability to block the majority with virtually zero effort has a toxic and divisive Only because you don't like the party in the minority. Next year, all of a sudden you will find that you don't believe that anymore

[@stephj9378]

Hmmmm...dont we see that every day?

[@adcgdsin9320]

If Democrats win this midterm, they will destroy the filibuster and I'm absolutely hoping that happens. Legislation has beem halted by the filibuster for far too long. It's time to end the filibuster.

[@pslacum]

Well wouldent that just lead to every time an administration changes parties, they would just reverse the last administration/congress decisions? It would still be equally as bad

[@erikabutler6893]

​@@pslacum I think in the medium- to long-term it will improve our politics, because the parties will now have to put up or shut up. The filibuster is a great excuse for not delivering on your promises, so take that away and now there's no excuse. Either you have to enact the policy (and possibly incur the wrath of voters) or you need to start talking about what you're actually willing to do. How do I know this? It's because that's how it works in our state legislatures, which generally don't have a filibuster; it's how it works in other democracies, which generally don't have anything like the filibuster, either. In my view, the adoption of the "silent" filibuster in the 1970s and its de facto 3/5 supermajority is one of the major causes of our problematic politics today. That's because it enables blame-shifting, excuse-making, and virtue-signaling without much substance. The filibuster today is cheap, easy to use, and incurs no cost for the minority that uses it while putting all the burden on the majority.

[@andrewrainaldi5581]

59 senators could vote for something and 1 could vote against it and it wouldn't pass. Awesome.

[@colbyhill25]

Fun fact: 50 senators could also vote for something and it would also still not pass. It’s called Democracy! 😃 To pass a law you need that law to be popular by roughly 60 democratically elected representatives! This is to prevent political whiplash every 2-4 years where simple majorities pass laws that aren’t overwhelmingly popular then those laws are simply overturned in the next congress!

[@warlordofbritannia]

@@colbyhill25 I wish we had a similar thing for Presidents, seeing as how Trump did a record number of executive orders to overturn policies of the Obama administration, which in turn have been nullified by the Biden administration…

[@icedmorning7610]

@@colbyhill25 We need a balance between “majority decides everything” and “nobody decides anything”. I feel like 60 votes is a bit too close to the latter.

[@colbyhill25]

@@icedmorning7610 when a country is so divided that 60 elected representatives can’t agree upon something we need not be passing sweeping legislation. This goes for legislation either party wants. We need to hash these differences out and actually come to a compromise. The reason the filibuster is being used more isn’t because it’s suddenly been seen as a potent weapon, it’s because politicians on both sides have dug their heels in and aren’t willing to pass bipartisan bills any more. Look at the Clinton presidency, despite him not having control over the Senate during his second term he got a *lot* of legislation passed. Because both he, and the Republican senators worked together to pass laws they *both* agreed upon. The filibuster is doing its job making sure we don’t have laws pass that only 50% of the populous likes while the other 50% despises.

[@colbyhill25]

Now was the Clinton presidency some world changing revolution in the US? No. But we can’t have such massive sweeping bills that turn the direction of our country so massively without broad support.

[@americanhistorygeek1926]

Fascinating, I never knew that there were two types of filibusters, thanks for covering this as well as “the nuclear option”, taught me a lot about how the U.S. senate works!

[@moses4769]

It's mainly the silent filibuster which has been killing stuff nowadays

[@americanhistorygeek1926]

@@moses4769 Yeah the filibuster is definitely made to keep the opposing party from passing whatever they want with a slim majority, but it does lead to a lot of stuff being stalled indefinitely in Congress

[@iammrbeat]

I know I was never taught this in high school. In fact, I never learned about it until grad school. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. BOOYAH

[@tomfrazier1103]

@@iammrbeat I learned about this in High School from Mr. Gregory.

[@parkmannate4154]

The whole way the Senate works today is just insane. It was First never meant to be a really political body (hence why Senators were appointed), and it was never meant to have such an outsized role in legislation. Its intention as far as my reading of the Federalist papers and other writings of the time was the Senate was meant to be essentially a Veto that could rewrite the parts they didnt like

[@parkmannate4154]

@@night6724 How much of the Federalist papers or the Letters of the time have you read? I suppose you could make that argument, but conceptually Madison and Jefferson especially did not believe party politics would enter the Senate. It would still to some extent be political but by Regional Block of Collected Interests. Thats not really the same thing thats happening now, with ideologically driven party stagnation

[@iammrbeat]

Your interpretation is not wrong

[@parkmannate4154]

@@iammrbeat Missouri did give me a BA in History. But as a Kansas guy you may hold that against me lol

[@Compucles]

The Constitution has always granted the Senate just as much legislative power as the House of Representatives, save for financial bills needing to originate in the House. Whatever is said of it in the Federalist papers otherwise is not how it was actually established.

[@robogecko4067]

Kind of like the uk lords?

[@omeganik]

A talking filibuster is literally the perfect solution. The current filibuster is juuust a little ridiculous.

[@luisandrade2254]

So long as people stay on topic the whole reading Shakespeare is cringy ridiculous

[@iammrbeat]

It does seem like a solid compromise.

[@jcavs9847]

and make senator's salaries and benefits directly tied to attending senate sessions

[@henrychinaski8686]

So you can filibuster something only if your baldder is good enough? Sounds like a fair system.

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

@@luisandrade2254 the best filibuster has to be reading out old family recipes 😆

[@zch7491]

If the filibuster is so good at forcing bipartisanship, it sure hasn't been working

[@steventodd787]

Great point!

[@defaultusername1145]

The most bipartisan thing is doing nothing so I would say it’s working pretty well

[@lau6438]

Would passing a bunch of non-partisan laws do good for the bi-partisanship?

[@Michael-mh2tw]

How do you know? You've never seen the senate without it. Maybe we're living under the most reasonable iteration possible.

[@KaiserBob99]

I've read an ex Congressman's opinion, he said the reason America can't get any meaningful legislation now is because legislators don't legislate, they just let the party elites write the bills and then vote along party lines on it. No working with the other side to build a consensus or any of that stuff. I think it's spot on

[@iammrbeat]

SO LET'S KICK THEM ALL OUT AND START FROM SCRATCH. JOIN ME FOR THE REVOLUTION!

[@KaiserBob99]

@@iammrbeat if you become Speaker of the House I'm in

[@BladeEdge86]

In many cases they don't even read the bills before voting on them and often stick a bunch of unrelated porkbarrel spending in them.

[@Donshades4404]

@@iammrbeat “I came here to kick @ss and find meaningful legislation, and you’re all out of legislation.”

[@ImperatorMatthew]

@@iammrbeat VIVA LE AMERICA

[@thinkinaboutpolitics]

Great video. The question isn't whether to "keep the filibuster," it's how we protest and foster debate. Unlimited debate (i.e., the "talking filibuster") subject to some vote of cloture based on the number of Senators in attendance seems a reasonable measure to do just that.

[@thewestisthebest6608]

Schumer then: I love the filibuster! Schumer now: I’ve always hated the filibuster!

[@iammrbeat]

Sounds like a politician to me

[@bemusedpanda8875]

When so SCOTUS judge assassinations begin so that the Majority party could pack the court without increasing the number of Justices.

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

Gotta love hypocrite politicians. For something when it benefits them, against something when it doesn’t. We need politicians who don’t flip on a dime the moment it’s convenient.

[@valdavis7461]

@@_somerandomguyontheinternet_ Good luck getting that to happen.

[@user-px7hj7jn9i]

You can say what you want about mitch but he never changed his position on the filibuster even when he had a majority

[@petitthom2886]

Add to the filibuster the polarization and partisanship, there's no surprise that politicians spend more time trying to block things than getting things done.

[@parkmannate4154]

It doesnt help when one guy has outsized power thats not based on anything written in the Constitution declares things like "Our only goal is to ensure Obama is a one term president" and "Even if we agree on the bill, we cant let them have any wins". I bet you can guess who said both those things about 12 years apart

[@bryjam]

@@parkmannate4154 Yep, once upon a time politicians used to be FOR things. Listen to them today and it's clear their #1 priority isn't healthcare of education or infrastructure, it's blocking the other party from getting anything done. You can't make progress as a country when you care more about obstructing the other party than passing legislation.

[@iammrbeat]

One could make a good argument that the filibuster CAUSES much of the polarization and partisanship.

[@petitthom2886]

@@iammrbeat That’s true also !

[@commscan314]

@@night6724 Implied powers, which allows Congress to do things not explicitly listed so long as they are in pursuance of them. This is like the bank debate of the 1790s. Congress is allowed to establish companies or organizations controlled by the federal government so long as they are interstate and do not violate any explicit constitutional provisions against such governmental behavior or any civil rights.

[@gamelandmaster3680]

The Roman SPQR also used filibustering, more and more often as the end of the Republic was near. This generally means that when filibustering becomes very common, the government needs a rework.

[@sppsports2449]

So you need 60 votes to end debate on something via cloture (unless it's a judicial or executive appointment), then need 51 votes to pass it into law? So you need more votes to end debate on something than you need to actually pass it into law? Weird

[@Jane-qh2yd]

Ironically, this is in my opinion what had led to the rapid increase in the power of the Executive Brach as well as the bureaucracy in these recent years. The Senate's inaction and inefficiency opens the door for another power to actually do their job, and the president has in my opinion been allowed to overstep their rights a few too many times for the simple fact that we'd all die waiting for the Senate to do something

[@johnpaulsylvester3727]

The whole Senate needs to be reformed. I’d be fine with going back to the states choosing Senators if we didn’t have any filibuster.

[@bradley8575]

Your Channel keeps getting Better keep up the Good work Mr Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you Bradley!

[@roadcalm3303]

If Aaron Burr was alive today, he would probably challenge you to a duel for saying he was a bad Vice President.

[@richdobbs6595]

I'd be all in favor of the Senate having a formal super majority requirement if I didn't have evidence that this leads to executive orders filling in the power vacuum from lack of legislation and an administrative state.

[@iammrbeat]

Not to mention the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench"

[@maryalove5534]

(: They should not have as much power as they have today because all it does is fulfill their own interests and their affiliated "Band of Thugs and Thiefs", which, of course, is completely wrong!!!!!

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

Strom Thurmond debating on the Senate floor for 24 hours in favor of racism. And he only had one bathroom break. That is the saddest thing I've heard all week.

[@qiuyushi2752]

The silent filibuster needs to end. And the President of the Senate could have more power in keeping debates relevant

[@iammrbeat]

Yep

[@qiuyushi2752]

@@iammrbeat So actually extending debates would actually be useful instead of delaying the bill

[@organizedchaos4559]

But would you still have VP be elected?

[@qiuyushi2752]

@@organizedchaos4559 Technically yes. This would be a non partisan role the VP plays despite party affiliations. The Speaker of the House plays a partisan and non partisan role as well.

[@hs5312]

How about instead congress be required to read the bills they propose.

[@ninjawarrior8994]

When 60 senators vote to remove the filibuster: *"I used the filibuster to destroy the filibuster"*

[@iammrbeat]

You just blew my mind.

[@buffalome1543]

Some additional context: Nuclear option: A Senator, almost always the Majority Leader, raises a point of order that their proposed Senate rule change is part of the rules of the Senate. The Chair will almost always not sustain (last time that happened was in 1975) the ruling, and the Majority Leader appeals the ruling, which is nondebatable, and is by majority vote. If the Senate overrules the chair, a new binding precedent is created. Talking filibuster: It does still exist. According to Riddick’s Rules of Procedure by one of the Senate’s Parliamentarians, “As long as a Senator has the floor, the Presiding Officer may not put the pending question to a vote. But when a Senator yields the floor and no other Senator seeks recognition, and there is no order of the Senate to the contrary, the Presiding Officer must put the pending question to a vote.” Senators under Senate Rule 19 are limited to two speeches per legislative (not calendar) day, meaning that there is a de facto limit to how long a filibuster can last (“no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.”), The minority can still filibuster by bringing up a few hundred amendments, motions, and points of order, also known as a vote-o-rama, but they can be tabled or ruled dilatory by majority vote. Schumer (my Senator!)’s point of order was this: “Mr. President, I make a point of order that for this message from the House, with respect to H.R. 5746, the only debate in order during consideration of the message be on the question of adoption of the motion to concur in the amendment of the House; further, that no further amendments, motions, or points of order be in order and that any appeals be determined without debate”, which would essentially ban those dilatory votes, and that made Manchin oppose it on the floor. Links: www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/01/19/168/12/CREC-2022-01-19-pt1-PgS277-6.pdf www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-46.pdf www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43331.html

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you!

[@matthewst537]

Good man mr beat for calling out chuck for lying

[@jennifermorris6848]

I think Bob Dole might point out that all the bipartisan work he achieved largely came because people had to work together. And I would also point out the 100% of our environmental laws have been passed since 1970. Bipartisan is the way to govern not whipsaw party rule.

[@iammrbeat]

Preach it!

[@Compucles]

Of course, Congress would be more willing to work together on bipartisan compromises if the filibuster didn't grant so much power to the minorities. Meanwhile, any "whipsaw" issues that resulted would be just fine in comparison if it got rid of this filibuster nonsense.

[@baronblackdragon9078]

How do you work with a party who openly despises democracy?

[@N3xtStopHell]

Must not be paying attention to anything that’s been happening the past decade

[@jw-ob1wv]

Yet no other democracy governs this way. This is just a case of american exceptionalism. If you want to see why getting rid of the filibuster is a good idea then all you need to do is look at Canada or Europe. In those countries there is majority rule but we don't see the "Whipsaw" that you're worried about it. Compromise is important but it makes no sense to compromise with the opposition party because it's rarely within their interest. Instead, the compromise in other democracies comes from the government having to negotiate with their majority partners, either coalition parties or members of their own party who have disagreements.

[@Edwicker]

I always learn a lot from these videos. I didn't know that aspects of the filibuster went back that far.

[@iammrbeat]

I learn a lot making them! lol

[@krone5]

@@iammrbeat thanks for telling us it was about aaron burr and not jim crow.

[@jwil4286]

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than it is to pass good ones.” Calvin Coolidge

[@jwjones1979]

But Republicans kill EVERY bill that doesn't make them more money.

[@richdobbs6595]

Great video of Shurmer arguing the opposite side of his current position.

[@iammrbeat]

Yep!

[@Hand-in-Shot_Productions]

Now that you mention it, it's quite funny! Does he support the filibuster or oppose it? Depends on if his title is "Senate Majority Leader" or "Senate Minority Leader"!

[@ethanstokes439]

So I don't know how I am watching this video, it didn't show up on you channel, I found it on the voting Playlist, its Thursday and you normally upload Friday, and I'm not a patreon member. Great video btw

[@iammrbeat]

You found it! Thanks for the kind words :)

[@melliott604]

It’s such a great channel not only can I come here to learn about government I get to learn about good products such as Birch mattresses I get to learn about good movies and I also get to learn about how it’s OK to not be perfect. Is there anything Mr. Beat Can’t do?

[@iammrbeat]

This comment was so crazy I loved it.

[@melliott604]

@@iammrbeat your content is anything but crazy! I love it! Keep Up the good work!!

[@advisorywarning]

😂

[@superdude899]

"I demand that this filibuster be ended! I have the button and I'm not afraid to use it!" - Senator Chuck Schumer

[@iammrbeat]

Where is that handy dandy button located?

[@valdavis7461]

The way you fix this: 1. If a bill receives 60 senate votes, it passes. 2. If a bill receives between 51-59 votes, and the senators that vote yes represent 67% or more of the population, it passes. This will prevent the small states from holding the nation hostage over important legislation.

[@cmndrkool321]

I remember an episode of the Simpsons where the Simpsons helped Krusty the Clown became a congressman to get a bill to remove the new airport that devalues their house, but it kept getting filibustered. They blackmailed and got some congressman drunk, then they attached their bill to another that gave orphans American flags with a paper clip, and got both bills passed.

[@iammrbeat]

Dang, there's like a Simpsons reference for EVERYTHING

[@kurtwhiteley481]

everyone always asks "why is the filibuster" but no one ever thinks to ask "how is the filibuster?"

[@SageArdor]

Mr. Beat, I've been subscribed to you for a good few months now. I appreciate how you do your best to not allow your biases to get in the way of delivering important historical points. I also love your speaking style. It feels genuine, as if you're having a conversation with the audience.

[@TimeChanger103]

Senators who care deeply about something should have to defend their position by talking in front of the country instead of hiding away and refusing to show up.

[@MrAlsachti]

I love the United States. They are still debating about how people from the 18th century wanted this law or that law to be interpreted. It's like if in France we were asking "What would Danton or Robespierre think about it?"

[@mattmurphy5805]

Imagine talking for 24 hours straight solely to prevent civil rights being given. I wonder what was going through Storm Thurmonds mind, probably not much lol

[@heyitsevan758]

As Mr. Krabs would say “Money!”

[@abrahamlincoln937]

Strom Thurmond spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes during his filibuster. Thurmond was a senator from South Carolina from 1956 to 2003.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Eh. Probably, a few racist thoughts, how much he hated them damn pinky kids saying people should be equal…

[@TheKeksadler]

You could say a "Storm" was going on in his head.

[@michaelholme3109]

It was to raise his own profile with segregationist voters. LBJ had gotten the Southern Democrat bloc to agree not to do a coordinated filibuster in exchange for a watered down bill. Thurmond’s defiance of this agreement made him a hero for those who wanted Jim Crow to continue.

[@iansrandomopinions6823]

Thanks for this video Mr. Beat. It’s good to learn more about the Senate and US government.

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@DarienSchillinger]

I find it odd when certain Americans make the claim that a limitless filibuster is an essential part of democracy. There's no other country in the western world where a bill can be indefinitely stalled by 41% of one legislative chamber. Almost all of those other western countries manage to have equal or better functioning democracies than the US in spite of a lack of limitless filibustering.

[@nepatrock]

I think this is a really important point that a lot of people miss

[@Azact]

Because the rest of the western world has more ”pure” and ”direct” democracy which is bad

[@Constructivecynicism]

I think there's a case to be made that the silent filibuster has contributed to political polarisation in recent decades. Why try to work with the party in the majority when you can just passively obstruct?

[@gguerard]

Hey Matt, thanks for the video! I would definitely like to see meaningful bills being passed, but think it would take a lot more than that with greed and corruption going on in politics today. BTW, what happened to the Wig party? Do you have a video on them?

[@iammrbeat]

Yes I do actually! I made it quite awhile ago.

[@alonkatz4633]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpOtmYCAi7yViqc Here's the video. Have fun!

[@freddiedejesus785]

It's a loose precursor for the Republican party, meaning their supporters/members generally became and dominated the Republican party.

[@organizedchaos4559]

Nope, that’s fine. With greed and corruption comings a tipping point. I think it has been a while since things got shaken up a bit, a revolution and the spoiling of American blood.

[@bradforchrist8891]

Great video Mr. Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you!

[@SiVlog1989]

With regards to Strom Thurmond and his record setting longest speaking Filibuster, at 24 hours and 18 minutes, I don't know whether to be impressed or disgusted by the lengths at which he abided by the Senate rules to keep speaking. Yes, he clearly had deep convictions about what he was standing for, but when the Bill he was attempting to stall was passed anyway, it makes you wonder why he bothered. What makes it even more baffling, 7 years later, Lyndon Johnson passed a Civil Rights Bill far stronger than that which Thurmond was trying to Filibuster in 1957. Strange. In a way though, despite his being a questionable human being, it does show how effective a domestic President Lyndon Johnson was. He, through his decades of experience in the Senate, knew how Senators think and used it to his advantage to get what he wanted

[@keithtimmons378]

Excellent video!!! I like your videos because they provide a historical perspective on what we see today. Too many people only see history in the light of recent years.

[@WLDB]

I'm frustrated by this and I'm not even an American. I can only imagine what it must feel like for someone who lives there. Also, if Aaron Burr comes back to life and challenges you to a duel I recommend you decline.

[@iammrbeat]

Good advice lol

[@stevied3400]

The filibuster protects political minorities. It’s a good thing.

[@THE_REAL_POLITIK]

I agree that the talking filibuster can be beneficial but I think the rules surrounding it should be very strictly defined to foster debate about bills and avoid political stunts like reading doctor Sues.

[@iammrbeat]

Good point!

[@Compucles]

I've never understood why the concept of the filibuster has been allowed to persist, as the cons clearly outweigh the pros. There are other ways they could ensure that bills are fully debated before a vote without this nonsense, especially when they stop talking about the bill itself just to keep the filibuster going. As for majority party rule, that's their right as the majority party. We voted for them, and if we don't like the laws they pass, we can replace them (and even potentially repeal the most unpopular laws). Besides, a bill has to gain the approval of both houses of Congress and usually the President (while an overturned veto just shows how popular the bill is), which is all rarely controlled by the same party.

[@ugoewulonu4936]

I feel a cold chill whenever someone mentions the name Burr.

[@iammrbeat]

Me too. And I get paranoid.

[@Compucles]

It makes me think about eating a sticky peanut butter sandwich while being out of milk.

[@VictorBR45]

I really like that you always put English captions. Thank you

[@iammrbeat]

Heck yeah

[@enmunate]

My proposal for the filibuster: Turn the senate to a sort of “house of lords” where the government doesn’t need their assent for bills to pass. The HOL can delay legislation out of the commons, but can’t, on its own, outright block legislation.

[@thehighground3630]

What a pointless thing to do.

[@enmunate]

@@thehighground3630 yes, upper houses are generally useless. But it would be a good funnel for the politically connected to have some sinecure position.

[@jimmyalpert5233]

Never stop making videos. One of my favorite youtubers.

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks Jimmy 🙂

[@jsheav]

I am glad you used the video of Shumer wanting to keep the filibuster back then. It's important to note than this is something both parties had wanted to get rid of when if benefited them, but want to keep when it doesn't.

[@sean_king]

Though arguably, republicans are to blame for they were the ones who started this trend in recent history. Mcconnell and co really liked using the filibuster to, in his own words, "deny obama a second term."

[@jsheav]

@@sean_king sure, he used it many times against Obama. They key point is that both parties are happy to use it when they are in the minority. He showed the wonderful plot that basically shows a linear increase in use of the filibuster, and it knows no party. Even the 2017 democrats set the record for most filibuster uses in a term, and the previous record was during Obama's tenure.

[@sean_king]

@@jsheav yes, both caucuses are in the wrong here, but there is a case to be made that dems may not have done it had mcconnell done the same. Republicans are much better with all this maneuvering and stuff, take gerrymandering as another example.

[@jsheav]

@@sean_king you could.also argue that McConnell had done it so much because harry Reid also used it. It's a never-ending cycle and you could go all the way back. Both parties are equally obsessed with power.even in the case of gerrymandering, take a look at Maryland (D) and youll see that both parties are guilty (many other democratic states do this too). Any time one thinks "my party is uniquely noble, and the other party is bad" they may be imposing a bias into their view.

[@unoriginalclips9923]

I always get excited when I see a new mr beat video release

[@iammrbeat]

Your icon shows it lol

[@glenmorrison8080]

Thank you for making this. I'm getting very very tired of many I agree with politically referring to the filibuster as the "Jim Crow" filibuster, as if they hadn't happily used it before, or vocally defended it, like Shumer. This is helpful to have in pointing out how much current talking points are driven by simplistic rhetoric.

[@coyotelong4349]

The filibuster should be eliminated and never used again, regardless of which party is in power Yes, seeing the majority party pass things you don’t want to see passed on a party-line basis would suck as the minority party, but that should serve as your motivation to retake the majority next time

[@Spiral.Dynamics]

Did you get your feefees hurt by words? Poor baby.

[@N3xtStopHell]

I mean it’s referred to as the Jim Crow filibuster because it was heavily used to prevent civil rights legislation from being passed. If that offends you maybe grow tf up

[@SacredScribble777]

This is the second video I've watched on your channel. Love it! You've earned a subscription.

[@andrewnessari8969]

I think we should abolish the filibuster, and enact electoral reform that allows for other parties to have greater representation in Congress. No singular party should hold majoritarian rule.

[@grantyoungblood7895]

The Senate just voted down a bill requiring the railroad companies, as part of their new contract with their workers, to offer them seven days of paid sick leave per year. The vote was 52-43 in favor of passing the bill, but because of the filibuster (and the GOP's ongoing efforts to represent their campaign donors, rather than actual citizens), the bill required 60 votes to pass... as does just about everything in the Senate now, unless they're renaming a Post Office somewhere. So those 43 minority "No" votes (all of whom get unlimited paid sick days as part of their job) are blocking a measly 7 days of sick pay for thousands of workers in a crucial sector of the economy! So yes, Matt... please do give us more examples of how keeping the filibuster encourages compromise and comity in the Senate. I look forward to seeing your video about all the many instances in Senate history where the option/threat of the filibuster resulted in improving the bill under consideration.

[@DavidV207]

You are a legend Mr. Beat ! I watch you everyday !

[@iammrbeat]

Really? Well hopefully don't get sick of me. 😄 But thank you!

[@sailorbychoice1]

I have long felt that a Congressperson or a Senator should be required to attend all sessions of the congress and senate (it is what we are paying them for); especially if/when any vote is being taken. I also think all congressional and senatorial votes should be published including who voted for what. I think any congressperson/senator who misses a vote should have 10% of their (and their staff's) paycheck deducted for the remainder of their term in office, along with 10% of their office's budgeted operating expenses

[@coyotelong4349]

It’s not even just the filibuster that should be eliminated in my opinion; it’s the structure of the Senate itself, as well as the 2-party system If we REALLY wanted bipartisanship to get things done, we’d have a parliamentary legislature like the UK or Canada There, many (not just 2) parties are incentivized to work together, forming coalitions if necessary to create a majority government

[@Mustapha1963]

The filibuster was put in place so that at least a degree of bipartisanship would be necessary to pass a bill. Given the polarization of Congress these days, it is more important than ever.

[@elephantyarn7378]

Did you not watch the video? The filibuster was put in place by complete accident. The suggestion that it encourages bipartisanship is an after-the-fact justification of the accident.

[@erengard1798]

I think silent filibusters shouldn’t be a thing, it is their duty to serve the people and it seems like a failure of service to avoid doing your job.

[@iammrbeat]

I agree!

[@WanukeX]

1:08 - huh, as a Canadian I didn’t know that was a thing we used to share, the Canadian house of commons still has the “Previous Question” motion, although because the Canadian house of commons has rules limiting speaking times, as well as another rule called “Closure”(long story), the previous question is usually only used if a bill is being filibustered by spamming amendments.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Mr. Beat, who’s your favorite senator currently.

[@iammrbeat]

Angus King probably

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@iammrbeat yeah I like Angus king, he’s one of only two people in the Senate that has facial hair, i’d probably say mine is Rand Paul.

[@warlordofbritannia]

@@iammrbeat That’s an excellent choice, imo

[@abrahamlincoln937]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 Rand Paul is good on foreign policy.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

It’s too bad we don’t have enough Who are actually any good,or affective at what they do.

[@spiritualjoy721]

Historically, has the filibuster benefitted either party? What has been the result of the filibuster-killing bad bills on the Senate floor, or preventing good legislation from moving forward?

[@whisperwalkful]

Mostly preventing good legislation from moving forward. There's an automatic check against bad legislation passing - voters would roast the party in the next election. THAT should be the actual check and balance, not some rules trick invented by accident.

[@Qualltoxy]

It's 's funny how the EU is passing way more laws despite having even more hurdles ;)

[@iammrbeat]

And most other republics

[@luisandrade2254]

Because the EU isn't so divided since it's less powerful. If Americans were ok with federalization this problem would go away

[@dylanjohnson8891]

I don't think passing more laws is what the USA needs right now lol.

[@BrendanJSmith]

I was gonna be REALLY disappointed if you didn't show the clip from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington!

[@davidski9899]

Mr. Beat your videos are always fantastic and educational, and as a Coloradan I really enjoy your little snark about the Raiders in this one 😂 very well played sir

[@johnwood8441]

Go Broncos!

[@Greybeardmedic]

As long as you can stop bills from passing then there is no incentive to compromise. The filibuster is the Senate version of an angry child holding their breath until they get their way.

[@meowww7308]

I’d ditch the silent filibuster and keep the talking filibuster in a perfect world. We don’t live in said world however. The filibuster is a powerful tool that should rarely be used, and when it is used it should be wielded properly. In recent memory it rarely seems that to be the case. I’d be in favor of imposing election term limits and other measures that limit how much power any one member of Congress can hold. The problem isn’t so much about the filibuster, rather the people who are able to use it. When members of Congress (more specifically the Senate for this discussion) do not act in good faith, it derails our government and stagnates the ability for us to change.

[@iammrbeat]

Well put!

[@botchamaniajeezus]

well maybe we should have a system that doesnt rely on good faith and nice people to function.

[@aaronburrhistory2938]

Aaron Burr created modern campaigning, was responsible for the filibuster and according to a book I read was one of the first lawyers to specialize in family law. He was more influential than most give him credit for.

[@lindsey7951]

Influential in the wrong ways

[@hirumbiffidum9145]

Wry and true ... excellent video, content, and presentation 👍

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you Hirum! First time I've been called "wry." lol

[@danonino1497]

I asked for this video! Thanks Mr. Beat.

[@justinblechinger6723]

Get rid of the filibuster as well as make it mandatory for all senators present for all voting days. Exemptions for health and family issues ie. funeral wedding surgery birth/childcare. If I pay them to make and debate. They better be there for those votes

[@iammrbeat]

Heck yeah, we need to hear from them

[@independentthinker8592]

Your deadpan joke deliveries are hilarious, keep it up 13:49

[@Anthonycheesman2024]

This is why FDR was so popular he actually got shit done .

[@iammrbeat]

Well he had quite a majority in Congress though.

[@douglasphillips5870]

I think we could include time for final arguments before voting, but it would need to be a limited, and on topic.

[@ChrisTheFreedomEnjoyer]

Chuck Schumer then: the filibuster is epic and based Chuck Schumer now: the filibuster is evil and racist

[@warlordofbritannia]

For the sake of transparency, let’s not forget about how Republicans delayed the naming for a year and a half of a Supreme Court Justice…just so they could have a chance at having a President of their own party to do so… Schumer has a lot to live up to!

[@alonkatz4633]

@@warlordofbritannia The Republicans were able to block Merrick Garland because thery had the majority right before a presidential election. It wasn't a filibuster.

[@icedmorning7610]

@@EnigmaticLucas Yeah, that’s what we need. Two equally corrupt parties. As if we weren’t already divided enough.

[@warlordofbritannia]

@@icedmorning7610 Based and wise perspective Democrats rn have the moral high ground by default, and that’s their main advantage in his post-Trump presidency climate

[@snaek2594]

@@icedmorning7610 speaking as though that weren't already the case.

[@joeohara3447]

Coming from another country the idea of the filibuster is completely mental to me. If you get 51% of the vote then you should get to pass the laws for the next 4 years. It's for the other side to try and explain to you holes in your laws or try to persuade why they are a bad idea. If the public deems you to have passed bad laws then they can change their vote.

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah we're really not that democratic over here

[@osberswgaming]

This video is genuinely based. Thanks for posting!

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks buddy!

[@keithwolschleger2411]

Yes sir, another Mr. Beat video, much support Mr. Beat, because of you, I love history.

[@DiamondKingStudios]

Mr. Beat: [talks about bills dying in the Senate] Yucatán, Campeche, and Quintana Roo, Mexico: "You know, we could have been part of the US once..."

[@iammrbeat]

I didn't predict this comment.

[@freddytang2128]

Im Canadian and first time I heard of the filibuster was hearing that Ted Cruz gave a 21 hour speech

[@wildbill7267]

The US Senate: where progressive ideals go to die. There should be a Constitutional amendment that requires Congress to vote on all legislation - In other words, require Congress to do the job we are paying them to do!!!!

[@iammrbeat]

What a radical idea :)

[@ryanmckenzie7149]

Take away the filibuster and a new way for the senate to do nothing will arise.

[@majaprusina4946]

I don't think Burr is the guy to blame because Then senate wasn't that big in size.Filibuster became a problem when senators discovered that they can politically gain a lot more by filibustering bills.This infuriated Wilson when he wanted to join WW1.His supermajority rule to end the conversation that prevents senate from voting bills.Yes Willson you are guy to blame(*cynical historian screams willson).

[@iammrbeat]

I agree. This is a problem we can clearly blame on the Whigs. :)

[@dafyddlloyd868]

while the term "filibuster" is indeed an American one (as noted in the vid), the practice is far older than the US. its first historical example is by senator Cato the Younger in 60BCE, although it's likely that the practice stretches further still into history.

[@tightywhitey9779]

Hamilton said in The Federalist when he talked about a separate Senate -- He said, "Yes, it seems inconvenient, but inasmuch as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won't be so bad." This is 1787 -- he didn't know what an excess of legislation was.

[@iammrbeat]

Hamilton: "To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.… The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy."

[@grishmtandon40]

Hey Mr. Beat, I’m guessing you heard about the removal of the Teddy Roosevelt statue at the American Museum of Natural history. I know you look up to Teddy (as do I), so I’m curious about your opinion.

[@iammrbeat]

I was certainly surprised by it

[@stevenski4]

5:54 Now that's a filibuster.

[@iammrbeat]

Oh snap, well played

[@deadmanthehekatonkheire994]

Really? At 4:42, you said the words “Kill the Bill” & you *didn't* show a clip of Uma Thurman doing the Five-point Palm Exploding Heart Technique? What is wrong with you?

[@bryjam]

I love how people try to justify the filibuster as "checks and balances." No, that's why we have 3 branches of government. Have these people never heard of the House of Representatives? Why do they think the veto exists?

[@schroederscurrentevents3844]

It prevents tyranny of the majority. Obviously, you should have the majority to pass something, but having 51-49 shouldn’t mean you can pass anything and ignore the entire rest of the country.

[@iammrbeat]

And the Supreme Court is so powerful now that it essentially can "make laws" based on interpretations, and a big reason why? The filibuster

[@Compucles]

@@schroederscurrentevents3844 That's their right as the majority! The majority is *supposed* to rule! If you don't like their laws, vote them out and try to get the worst laws repealed. Meanwhile, they still can't pass *anything* , as those bills still have to get past the House and usually the President, as well.

[@boygenius538_8]

@@schroederscurrentevents3844 that’s democracy, if you don’t like it pick something else. The senate is already a check on majority power in the house being skewed towards smaller states.

[@whisperwalkful]

@@boygenius538_8 That's not democracy, there is zero other democracies outside the USA that have a filibuster...and somehow none of those countries are "ruined" in any way. Filibuster is not democracy, its a perversion of democracy.

[@jw-ob1wv]

The arguments for keeping the filibuster are entirely hypothetical and completely fall apart when you look at how things work in other democracies. At this just point it's just a classic case of American exceptionalism. In other democracies you only need a simple majority to get things passed, yet you don't see the wild policy swings that pro filibuster people fear. That's because eliminating the filibuster would reduce partisanship and give moderate senators more power to express their views and propose reforms to bills. Instead of negotiating with the minority party there would be more negotiation within the party in power, or between coalition parties in power which is the case in much of Europe. Having a rule that forces two parties to compromise when they are completely opposed ideologically and when there is little to gain from compromise makes no sense whatsoever.

[@yhonmartinezjr.3824]

Love ❤ ur channel

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you!

[@yhonmartinezjr.3824]

Watch u all the time

[@michaelkrinsky3582]

Heyyyyyy Mr. Beat! I love your content! Have you done a video on Buckley v. Valeo? If not, would you consider it? Take care!

[@iammrbeat]

Not yet! Thank you and thanks for the suggestion!

[@macart5429]

Get rid of the Filibuster entirely! Its one of the many undemocratic things we have in the US along with Electoral College and our 9 Seat/Term for life SUPREME COURT

[@iammrbeat]

I hear the passion!

[@atadbitahistory9660]

I like you- EXCEPT the Supreme court, the position for life is horrific, considering the public not liking who the justices are is basically tough luck, BUT I do like the concept of the Supreme Court. The constitution just makes me annoyed. It is leaving positions in the Supreme court up for a little too much interpretation, and they literally don't need a formal law education for the position.

[@korytoombs886]

How about putting time limits on how long each senator can debate a bill? Like 1 hour max each.