Why Bills Die in the U.S. Senate

Thank you Birch for sponsoring. Visit birchliving.co... to get $400 off your Birch mattress plus two free pillows!
Ever wonder why the United States Senate rarely passes a law? The answer might surprise you.
Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video by Matt Beat, used under fair use guidelines, or found in the public domain. Music by ‪@ElectricNeedleRoom‬(Mr. Beat's band).
Sources/further reading:
www.merriam-we...
lawreview.law....
www.senate.gov...
www.brennancen...
constitutionce...
www.brookings....
www.npr.org/te...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.senate.gov...
books.google.c...
deadline.com/2...
www.theatlanti...
www.realclearp...
thehill.com/op...
www.brennancen...
www.c-span.org...
www.usatoday.c...
scholarlycommo...
www.newyorker....
Congress and its Members (Fifteenth Edition) by Roger H. Davidson, Walter J. Oleszek, Frances E. Lee, and Eric Schickler
Cameo, yo: www.cameo.com/...
Buy Mr. Beat merch: matt-beat-shop...
Snail mail Mr. Beat: PO Box 1982 Lawrence, KS 66044
Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat's book, The Ultimate American Presidential Election Book: Every Presidential Election in American History (1788-2016) amzn.to/3fdakiZ
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
More merch: www.bonfire.co...
Reddit: / mrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedler...
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat on Instagram: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's Discord server: / discord
Mr. Beat's Tiktok: www.tiktok.com...
Mr. Beat favorites:
POP! Icons: George Washington go.magik.ly/ml...
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.c...
Shampoo: rb.gy/vlqeym
Acne fighter: rb.gy/a6dnb0
Recommended books:
Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing go.magik.ly/ml...
Truman by David McCullough go.magik.ly/ml...
Studio equipment:
Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens amzn.to/3dcNPen
Samtian LED Video Light Kit amzn.to/3llDwHO
TroyStudio Acoustic Panel amzn.to/33CkqHn
Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic amzn.to/2GseOHa
I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here:
www.magiclinks...
FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links.
#filibuster #ussenate #uspolitics
If it weren’t for the fact that the United States has been so divided over the past 25 years, the filibuster wouldn’t be as big of a deal. The minority party in the Senate has been a LOT louder and more powerful since then. It’s not like the Senate hasn’t passed laws since the 1970s. However, it’s been increasingly difficult for them to pass MEANINGFUL laws ever since.
The reason why it’s so difficult for the U.S. Senate to pass any new law is mostly due to…an accident because the creation of the filibuster was an accident. Only later did the minority political party make arguments that the filibuster was a good idea in order to protect the minority.
Whenever you hear someone argue that the Founding Fathers actually wanted the Senate to have a filibuster, I doubt this person actually knows what the heck they are talking about. In fact, if you go back and read what many of them said and wrote, they warned that making supermajorities a thing would lead to bills never getting passed.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?"

[@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!

[@danonino1497]

I asked for this video! Thanks Mr. Beat.

[@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!

[@dianedildine5669]

Thank you Mr Beat for cheering me up!!🤩

[@iammrbeat]

Well your comment cheered me up as well :)

[@emilianozamora399]

The filibuster has existed for over 2000 years it's insane there's no workarounds to stop it from being exploited

[@michaellinehan710]

All of these videos about the electoral college and the brokenness of Congress in the US makes me very glad to live in a nation with Parliamentary system that actually allows the government to pass laws and forces compromise through proportional representation and the existence of "members' bills". There are very few passages of legislation here that require more than a simple majority.

[@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 :)

[@kathieharine5982]

The country should get rid of the Senate.

[@boone7812]

I see the filibuster as a hindrance as well as something useful. It does hinder laws from passing, and I have an idea that could fix this, but it also requires unity from the political parties if one party doesn't have a supermajority. This allows for the minority to still be heard, which, in my opinion, is good. One thing I wish our legislative branch could not do is compile laws together in a single bill. What I mean is like the Inflation Reduction Act that primarily covered five items (15% corporate tax, prescription drugs price reform, IRS tax enforcement, affordable Care act (ACA) extentions, and energy and climate change investments). It is dumb that they have so many items in one massive bill. I believe the bills should be direct and to one topic, so in my example, the five topics in the Inflation Reduction Act would be five separate bills. This would make the items that the majority of all parties approve of pass the senate while holding up the topics that they are divided on. Currently, our senate holds up a bill because they disagree on a portion of the massive bill, which cause it all to be held up. So, separate the items and pass the portions in which there is agreement and discuss and compromise on the portions that there isn't current agreement.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Sometimes things get held up that way. Other times the whole bill gets passed when it would have died otherwise, since a bunch of people like A and don't care about B while others like B and don't care about A. Neither would have the votes on its own, but put them together and the support is there.

[@fm-dk9dn]

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is now on my watch list... Thank you Mr. Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

Awesome! It's a little slow in the beginning, but hang in there, I promise you it gets way better at the end.

[@NDBF123]

Don't abolish the filibuster. Abolish the Senate.

[@cinemaipswich4636]

This tells me that the US is not a democracy. If you have 50% +1, you have a majority. Since it is a house of review, and not the originator of laws, then I do not see what the problem is. I can understand that, if it were a "new amendment to the constitution" then 66% of the senate may be applicable, but not everyday legislation. Most Parliaments/Congresses have time limits for debate.

[@daultontemplet4016]

So, senators are rewarded for not showing up to work?

[@slricksy]

Great educational video! Thanks!:-)

[@moses4769]

It's the 12th anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC today

[@iammrbeat]

Let's all celebrate by watching my video about it!

[@bobjackson4287]

In a time that is so divided politically, this is not the right time to make it easier for simple majority's to cause huge swings in the country. It's bad for both Democrats and Republicans for different reasons.

[@cat_alyst6306]

Great video!! All of these shenanigans are complete nonsense. Only in politics can someone get paid handsomely for f-ing off at work. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@conversationtosaurusrex]

I feel, they need to deeply reform the filibuster. There is no reason in hell why its okay for a senator to waste tax dollars by standing at the open podium and saying none relevant information to the issue at hand, whether it be Reading the Cat in the Hat, or reading a phone book or quoting a little wayne song. Legitimately these are all examples of what has happened in the filibuster.

[@jaytilala7388]

Senate is working the way it was supposed to. Without Filibuster, republicans would have gotten rid of Obamacare when trump was president. You can't choose when you like filibuster and when not. It forces both parties to work with each other to form policies, otherwise we would have policy changes and new laws every time a party came into power

[@EPluribusUnumYT]

If I were smart, I would have also released my Filibuster video this week....

[@iammrbeat]

If I were smarter, I would have released it last week.

[@EPluribusUnumYT]

@@iammrbeat Its still on peoples minds so u can still get clicks

[@adanactnomew7085]

I have to ask. How often do you show your students your videos

[@iammrbeat]

Probably too much lol

[@roboticactivities]

As a huge football and history fan, I coulda kissed you for the Football part of the video

[@milagros77to]

I think we should ditch the silent filibuster but we should reform the talking filibuster by changing the cloture rule for instead of being a 3/5 vote to end debate maybe it could be a simple majority vote.

[@luciferangelica]

funny, on the sixth, i kept thinking of the version of mr smith that mel gibson made on the simpsons

[@Caxel108]

Love hate relationship with the filibuster, it has prevented some grotesque unconstitutional laws from passing but also very meaningful ones, double edge sword

[@jeaniusedits6094]

Hello Mr. Beat. This is very important! Please respond to me! Can you make a video about the JFK assassination?

[@ADT1995]

I support the vocal filibuster, but not the silent filibuster. I do like that minority gets representation in Congress, but a small group of people also shouldn't be able to shut down any progress by virtue of not showing up. That's just my take on it.

[@MegaRED555]

I wish Mr Beat was my US Govt teacher in high school 😭

[@iammrbeat]

Well at least I can teach you on here? 🙂

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@chad2522]

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]

​@@chad2522 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.

[@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

[@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 😆

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@justinchandler1226]

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

[@ImperatorMatthew]

@@iammrbeat VIVA LE AMERICA

[@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"!

[@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.

[@ninjawarrior8994]

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

[@iammrbeat]

You just blew my mind.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!!!!!

[@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.

[@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.

[@frigginmanbeard3073]

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.

[@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 :)

[@matthewst537]

Good man mr beat for calling out chuck for lying

[@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.

[@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?

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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]

😂

[@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!

[@osberswgaming]

This video is genuinely based. Thanks for posting!

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks buddy!

[@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!

[@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?

[@dewforpolitics]

This video turns Manchin and Sinema on. But by the time people see this comment in 4 years they won’t be senators any more

[@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

[@bradley8575]

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

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you Bradley!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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

[@hirumbiffidum9145]

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

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@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. :)

[@luciferangelica]

i think if it ever somehow comes up, you should decline to duel aaron burr. he has a winning record, and what's he gonna do if you say no? call you chicken? so what? chicken is delicious

[@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

[@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.

[@DavidV207]

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

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@shanejones7906]

That's the problem with our political logic. When we don't like the rules we change them but then go apeshit when the other side does it. Americans and the political establishment think from Election to the next without realizing that the Liberal V Conservative balance of power swings back and forth with each Generation and it's extremely unpredictable. A prime example is the Greatest Generation started out as the most liberal generation in U.S history but by the time Eisehower ran in 1952, they became more conservative with each Election to the point that Ronald Reagan won 2 massive landslides in 1980 and 84 even though he was seen as one of the most right wing political figures in post WW2 America. George W. Bush was the last President elected by the Greatest Generation which had started fading into history in the mid to late 1990s.

[@bradforchrist8891]

Great video Mr. Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you!

[@ty8756]

I think the filibuster is an important tool to keep the majority party in check/help the minority party to still have a say on the topic of debate but I think having 60 senators agree on one thing together is near impossible, especially when the country is pretty much divided 50/50 at the moment. 53-55 could be a more realistic and viable option but idk if they'd even agree to that lol

[@jglobetrotter2830]

IMO the bigger problem is that the small population States have far too much power due to the reapportionment acts. The House is no longer representative by population, and this will only become a bigger problem as cities continue to grow. Rural areas were never supposed to have outsized influence in the House nor such a great influence on the electoral college. That’s what the Senate was designed for. Now rural States have an advantage in the House, and the Senate AND the electoral college that was never intended in the Constitution.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Zomonitan]

I think there should definitely be a rule that whatever is said during a filibuster must actually be related to the bill in question. It should have to be an actual debate/discussion about work. Also, if I just didn't show up for work, I'd be fired, so the same should apply to senators. Do your f*cking job or get out of the way so someone else can do it.

[@Anthonycheesman33]

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

[@iammrbeat]

Well he had quite a majority in Congress though.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.