The filibuster has outlived its usefulness. You may want to consider the fact that not only the U.S. Senate, but the U.S. House of Representatives had the filibuster, until the House abolished its filibuster in 1811 after its membership kept increasing. Therefore, one house has already abolished the process. You might also want to consider the fact that the filibuster is not referenced in the Constitution, but emerged after the Constitution’s adoption. With that said, do you agree with James Madison in Federalist 48, that the Constitution provides for similar “parchment barriers” between the different branches of government as found in the various state constitutions of the time? Furthermore, does the inter-agency or inter-mixture of powers (i.e., checks and balances), as found in the existing constitutional roles and powers of each branch sufficient to yield such “auxiliary precautions” as he describes in Federalist 51 of separating out powers; thereby negating the need for the filibuster in the Senate. Basically, would you feel comfortable with deference to tradition as is found in Britain preventing the party in power from doing whatever it wishes, or do you feel that Madison was correct in providing for checks and balances between the branches? Lastly, the increasing frequency of its use in the past few decades, and the historical instances of its utilization in a number of rather ignoble causes tends to impugn its beneficial aspects and calls into question whether it has consistently been used as originally intended as a necessary check on the majority.
The filibuster has outlived its usefulness. You may want to consider the fact that not only the U.S. Senate, but the U.S. House of Representatives had the filibuster, until the House abolished its filibuster in 1811 after its membership kept increasing. Therefore, one house has already abolished the process. You might also want to consider the fact that the filibuster is not referenced in the Constitution, but emerged after the Constitution’s adoption. With that said, do you agree with James Madison in Federalist 48, that the Constitution provides for similar “parchment barriers” between the different branches of government as found in the various state constitutions of the time? Furthermore, does the inter-agency or inter-mixture of powers (i.e., checks and balances), as found in the existing constitutional roles and powers of each branch sufficient to yield such “auxiliary precautions” as he describes in Federalist 51 of separating out powers; thereby negating the need for the filibuster in the Senate. Basically, would you feel comfortable with deference to tradition as is found in Britain preventing the party in power from doing whatever it wishes, or do you feel that Madison was correct in providing for checks and balances between the branches? Lastly, the increasing frequency of its use in the past few decades, and the historical instances of its utilization in a number of rather ignoble causes tends to impugn its beneficial aspects and calls into question whether it has consistently been used as originally intended as a necessary check on the majority.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
