Filibuster: Good in Theory, Bad in Practice
Published in Exelsior
(Mexico) on 4 March 2010
by Analicia Ruíz (link to original)
(Mexico) on 4 March 2010
by Analicia Ruíz (link to original)
Translated from
by Grant Wheeler.
Edited by Laura Berlinsky-Schine.
Discussing, arguing and even reading kitchen recipes without stopping, with the intention of halting the approval of a new law, have been the tactics of the Republicans in the Senate to block the proposed reforms of Obama.
The legislative process is based on the fundamental concept of debating. The right to debate and discuss a proposal for a new law is one of the most important principles of Democracy. It is just as important as the right to vote; it guarantees that the impact of a new law will be analyzed meticulously.
This principle of debate has lost meaning in the United States Senate. With a resource called the filibuster, the minority can block a law. The filibuster allows senators to prolong a debate indefinitely in order to stop a vote from taking place. This resource, originally implemented to make sure that the voice of the minority was heard, has been changed into an obstacle in the legislative process through repeated abuse.
In order to pass a law in the senate, you have to gain 51 of the 100 votes — in other words, a simple majority. With the use of the filibuster, you need an initiative to get 60 votes, three-fifths, to be able to approve a law and beat the minority filibuster. This trick allows the minority, despite the majority vote, to prevent any laws from being approved.
This legal obstacle has been the tactic used by Republicans to block laws along with judicial and administrative nominations from Obama, the most important of which has been health care reform.
Historically, this tool has been utilized by both parties when there is a marked opposition to an initiative. However, looking to hinder Obama's administration, the Republicans have threatened filibuster even with initiatives and nominations against which they have no arguments. They utilize the filibuster like a mechanism of negotiation to promote their own interests.
Today, this means that despite the fact that the Democrats have a majority in both houses, they have found it impossible to push through new laws and realize any changes to the government. Many in Washington believe that the filibuster should be regulated so that the minority can no longer obstruct the majority.
Some ask: Is it possible to govern if this trick is used by both parties to obstruct the majority?
There exists a proposal to eliminate it, while guaranteeing that the minority will still be heard, since this was the original purpose of the filibuster. But an agreement of this sort is seen as impossible, as the same Republican senators would have to vote to change it, setting aside the filibuster.
For Obama, this obstacle has been the obstruction to the changes he promised in his campaign, among which is immigration reform and measures necessary to fix unemployment.
Continuing like this, the possibility of implementing these programs and changes is doubtful, along with the possibility of Democrats maintaining a Senate majority.
With the partisan climate reigning in Washington, Obama's administration is nothing more than a castle in the sky, and the possibility of economic recovery becomes more and more complicated.
Just as happens in the United States, party loyalties cause government conflict in Mexico, as well. In recent years, the misuse of legislative practices has obstructed the adoption of laws in both systems.
The legislative process is based on the fundamental concept of debating. The right to debate and discuss a proposal for a new law is one of the most important principles of Democracy. It is just as important as the right to vote; it guarantees that the impact of a new law will be analyzed meticulously.
This principle of debate has lost meaning in the United States Senate. With a resource called the filibuster, the minority can block a law. The filibuster allows senators to prolong a debate indefinitely in order to stop a vote from taking place. This resource, originally implemented to make sure that the voice of the minority was heard, has been changed into an obstacle in the legislative process through repeated abuse.
In order to pass a law in the senate, you have to gain 51 of the 100 votes — in other words, a simple majority. With the use of the filibuster, you need an initiative to get 60 votes, three-fifths, to be able to approve a law and beat the minority filibuster. This trick allows the minority, despite the majority vote, to prevent any laws from being approved.
This legal obstacle has been the tactic used by Republicans to block laws along with judicial and administrative nominations from Obama, the most important of which has been health care reform.
Historically, this tool has been utilized by both parties when there is a marked opposition to an initiative. However, looking to hinder Obama's administration, the Republicans have threatened filibuster even with initiatives and nominations against which they have no arguments. They utilize the filibuster like a mechanism of negotiation to promote their own interests.
Today, this means that despite the fact that the Democrats have a majority in both houses, they have found it impossible to push through new laws and realize any changes to the government. Many in Washington believe that the filibuster should be regulated so that the minority can no longer obstruct the majority.
Some ask: Is it possible to govern if this trick is used by both parties to obstruct the majority?
There exists a proposal to eliminate it, while guaranteeing that the minority will still be heard, since this was the original purpose of the filibuster. But an agreement of this sort is seen as impossible, as the same Republican senators would have to vote to change it, setting aside the filibuster.
For Obama, this obstacle has been the obstruction to the changes he promised in his campaign, among which is immigration reform and measures necessary to fix unemployment.
Continuing like this, the possibility of implementing these programs and changes is doubtful, along with the possibility of Democrats maintaining a Senate majority.
With the partisan climate reigning in Washington, Obama's administration is nothing more than a castle in the sky, and the possibility of economic recovery becomes more and more complicated.
Just as happens in the United States, party loyalties cause government conflict in Mexico, as well. In recent years, the misuse of legislative practices has obstructed the adoption of laws in both systems.
Previous article![]( "Renewed Unease between the US and Europe")
