The Stackhouse Filibuster
The West Wing
What did you learn about law making from this episode?
Both parties when they are in the majority have made motions to eliminate filibusters. Should filibusters be removed from Senate law making procedures?
We are going to watch this in class on Wednesday(2) and Thursday(1)....if you know you are going to be absent, then you have the link to make it up. Unfortunately it is paid content so you would have to pay $1.99 to watch it or go to the library where the DVD can be rented.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I observed in this episode, the process of lawmaking is a lengthy process that forces proposed legislation to endure the great tests of passing the House and Senate. Both of these chambers are made of competing interests that are sometimes compromised because of the logrolling that provides favors for the representatives that do not benefit from this bill. Furthermore, both parties have made motions to eliminate filibusters. However, it would be a disservice if the filibuster is eliminated. It would deprive the minority party of the power to check the will of the majority. If the minority opinion is ignored, there is less faith in the government's ability to value the interests of citizens other than the majority. On a side note, we need more of Rand Paul's filibusters against the dispicable surveilance done by the NSA. -Nicholas Gucciardo
ReplyDeleteA filibuster is when the minority party is attempting to cut off a bill being passed by the majority party. The rule of it is that you keep the floor as long as you hold the floor. The White House can in fact write their own resolution. In regards to an open bill vs. a closed bill, in both the house and senate if a bill is open then any member of congress can add amendments which 9/10 times leads to pork barrel legislation. They also tend to get to the floor much faster, making it much more expensive.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I saw in the video, filibusters should not be removed from senate law making procedures because it directly demonstrates democracy. It allows the minority party to demonstrate opposition and voice their opinions. The rule that you can keep the floor as long as you hold the floor allots more than enough time for the individual senator to voice their argument or the justification behind their opposition to a bill that the majority party in congress wants to pass. Even though both parties have attempted to eliminate filibusters I believe that they are essential in ensuring that the minority party can still uphold a bill and attempt to make revisions to it.
This episode is about the process of sending a bill to the president through legislative approval. The majority party has the upper hand in this process, however a minority party congressman could philibuster to stall the bill and potentially change it. I believe the philibuster should not be removed from law because it allows a minority party to have a larger voice in law making.
ReplyDeleteThis episode show how even though a certain party may not have the majority, they still have a large say in the process of bill making. I agree that filibustering should be kept but to an extent. Filibustering does give the minority power but at the same time it slows down the progression of any other bills that could be potentially more important from crossing the presidents desk. I think there should be a specific time limit for this act and if the senator reaches that time limit, the bills vote must be put aside for renegotiation of the specifics of the bill by both parties.
ReplyDeleteI learned that a party without the majority still has a chance in every bill. Favors can be traded for votes or a party can filibuster to delay a bill and attempt to wait until many members of the opposite party leave. Filibusters should be removed, it's an immature way of a party attempting to delay a vote that will happen no matter what.
ReplyDeleteThis episode of the West Wing, in combination with knowledge garnered in the past from other sources, demonstrates that law-making is by no means an easy process. Instead, it is drawn out for weeks, months, and even years, often through various tactics employed by the minority party in the Senate. One of these tactics include the filibuster, which is essentially a glorified form of procrastination, where a Senator reads irrelevant information (recipes, Harry Potter novels, etc.) in hopes to prevent a bill from passing. As shown in the West Wing, filibusters can last for hours,or as long as the Senator remains standing. Although the process seems completely ridiculous, and may be ineffective 90 percent of the time, filibusters should not be removed from Senate law-making procedures, as it gives members of the minority party power and maintains a fair democratic balance.
ReplyDeleteLawmaking is a lengthy and complicated process, because legislation must be approved by a bipartisan, bicameral Congress before passing on to the President. Therefore, processes such as earmarking, which is the practice of reserving money for a certain purpose as an addition to the bill, and logrolling, which is the exchange of favors (usually votes) between legislators, have been adopted in attempts to garner greater support for certain pieces of legislation. Additionally, the minority party can filibuster in order to get something added to a bill or even prevent a bill from being voted on. For instance, in this episode of the West Wing, Senator Stackhouse filibusters for over eight hours in order to get an amendment funding autism research added to the health care bill. Since you keep the floor as long as you hold the floor in a filibuster, no one could interrupt the Senator while he was speaking, although he was just reading recipes and novels. Based on this episode, I think that filibusters should remain a part of the law making process in the Senate because it gives the minority party a better chance to influence legislation. The idea that everyone has a right to voice their opinion is an essential principle in a democracy and thus, should not be removed.
ReplyDeletei learned from the film that the bill making process can be very long and stressful. we also learned how a filabuster can delay a bill as long as the person speaking does not stop. to prevent someone from holding the floor for as long as they can, there should be a limit on how long you can speak for so that everyone can get an even say in the bill making process.
ReplyDelete(Ryan McMahon)
ReplyDeleteFrom the movie presented in class, I have concluded that the law making process is lengthy and drawn out. This is mostly due to the use of filibusters. In the movie, the man uses this action by speaking in order to hold up government from creating action. During this time, the man can't leave at all, can't eat or drink, can't lean on anything or anyone, and can't stop talking. After this finally ends a vote will occur. In this instance, he is reading an entire recipe book on a Friday night. A filibuster occurs in the senate and not the house because the house is more formal with a speaker who can set a time limit and stop them. I believe this action should be kept in the senate because it is a strong representation of democracy.
After watching the show in class I've learned that the law making process can be very lengthy and difficult to carry out especially when there is a government gridlock when the congress and president are not from the same party. A Senator can filibuster in order to prevent a vote from occurring which can go on for hours which also proves how long the law making process can take. In my opinion filibustering should be allowed to occur since it shows the democracy of the country and the ability of people to get their voice heard.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode, it has cemented my prior knowledge that the law making process is extremely prolonged and hazardous in some instances especially when partisan sentiments arise or the government finds itself in a gridlock. Especially when the houses and the president are not of the same party. Furthermore I also gathered that a filibuster is a tool that can be used by a senator in order to prevent a bill from coming to a vote, the senator has the floor as long as they can talk unaided and of their own will which can dramatically lengthen the process of law making. However despite the obvious drawbacks to lengthening the system as such, I do not believe that filibusters should be removed from the Senate because it would be removing the right of a senator to speak on an issue that they must obviously be passionate about so much so as to halt a vote on the issue and free speech and having ones voice heard should be encouraged among the informal senate.
ReplyDeleteLawmaking tends to be an extremely drawn-out and complex process that requires a ton of research, negotiations, and compromises. Many bills address very specific subject matters that take a long time to create policy for, such as the waste disposal legislation in the intern scene of West Wing. Furthermore, in order to pass the bill through Congress, various amendments, earmarks, and pieces of pork-barrel legislation must be added to the bill, which is once again highly time consuming. Then, once the bill has actually been created, which takes long enough, it must be put up to discussion and vote on the House and Senate floor. The vote is the final part of the process before the bill is either sent to the President or sent back to the committees for re-negotiation. However, in order to keep the Senate from voting on a bill, the filibuster has been used to push off time by holding the Senate floor for hours at a time. Oftentimes, filibusters address completely irrelevant information, such as the contents of a cookbook in the Stackhouse filibuster of West Wing, which wastes the time of the fellow Senators to a point where the vote must be delayed or cancelled. This procedure, in my opinion, is caustic to our hallowed democracy. While many argue that the filibuster is necessary for the minority party to maintain power over the minority party, the fact is that the counter-productivity and actual power of the filibuster is hurtful to the legislative process. The fact of the matter is that while filibusters may delay a vote on a bill, this does not remotely guarantee any favorable changes being made to the bill. The only favorable option for the minority party is the cancellation of the bill's vote, but this would only lend itself to the bill eventually being re-introduced and brought to vote again, perpetuating the procrastination process. Furthermore, the filibuster method doesn't only push off the vote of one bill, but also that of various other crucial and potentially very effective bills, resulting in their decline. The filibuster technique also lends itself to the growing discontent of the populace with regards to our federal government, allowing the rise of potentially unqualified populist leaders solely on the promise of fixing these issues regardless of their opinions on other issues. While I understand the good intentions of the filibuster in embracing the minority to create compromise, it is simply an ineffective process in its current state. Throwing out filibustering altogether is a potential option for reform, but it could also be fixed by the implementation of an objection or regulation protocol where totally irrelevant or copyrighted material cannot be read onto the record. Issues such as this that effect the very function and effectiveness of our democracy are among the most vital ones to solve quickly, but unfortunately the nature of the issue prevents speedy progress.
ReplyDeleteI just realized how long this was so I apologize if this took very long to read. Have a happy holiday everyone!
DeleteAfter watching this episode and what I learned from class, I realized that the law making process is time consuming and stressful. The process is extremely complex and there are many procedures and tactics taken by people in order to prevent a vote from occurring. When the Congress consists of two different parties, government gridlock can occur. I learned that a filibuster is when a person, usually from the minority person, tries to procrastinate a vote from taking place. It is an attempt to defeat a bill in the Senate by talking indefinitely, thus preventing the Senate from taking action on the bill. Although I do believe that a filibuster takes time away from other important issues and is a form of procrastination, I do not think they they should be eliminated completely. We, the citizens of the United States, voted those senators into office. We trust their opinions and beliefs and therefore we should not eliminate their right to express and voice their opinion. It gives the minority party power over the majority party and provides the minority with a change at influencing the legislation.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode, I learned that lawmaking is an extremely complex process, and that while its difficult and takes a very long time to create a law, it takes even more work and more time to get one passed. It takes a lot of compromises and decisions to finally come up with a final copy of a bill. Then, to get votes, so much needs to be added onto the bill whether it be from earmarks, or pork-barrel legislation. Finally, the Senate and the House have to vote. However, in the Senate, a vote can be postponed or cancelled through the use of a filibuster, just like in this episode. A filibuster is basically when a Senator talks nonstop on the floor, without leaving, leaning on anything, eating, drinking, sitting, or anything really.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, these filibusters should not be removed from law-making procedures. They allow an individual or group to stand up (literally) for what they believe in. If someone has the willpower to go through a filibuster for such a long time, they earned the right to postpone or cancel the bill. While it does make law-making an even lengthier process, it gives a minority party the chance to avoid a law being passed that goes so strongly against their own beliefs. It definitely affects the efficiency of law-making but if we wanted efficiency we probably wouldn't be a democracy. A filibuster embraces the democracy that we live in and allows input from the minority. Therefore, filibusters should not be eliminated from Senate law making procedures.
After watching the episode in class, I learned that a lot more than I thought goes into law making. First of all, there are multiple types of bills. For example, in the episode, they present an Omnibus Bill that serves multiple purposes. So if you want to vote for one thing in the bill, then you have to vote for the entire bill. Second, you have to avoid Christmas Tree bills because if too many legislators add what they want to the bill then the bill will be too heavy and not pass. Third, there are open and closed bills. An open bill contains pork barreling, add-ons, and are more likely to get more votes. A closed bill contains no amendments, cannot be changed, and needs the most help from its sponsor. With regards to filibusters, I believe that they should not be banned since they promote the democracy that our nation was founded on.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode in class, I learned that there are many complexities in passing a law. Prior to watching this video, I had a limited understanding of law-passing, from understanding how the the checks and balances system works to the steps a bill takes to get passed. However, certain bills are passed that seem unfair or unpopular to people, and are actually challenged. It would be almost impossible to pass controversial or unpopular laws unless there is a specific method to passing these laws. This method is known as an Omnibus Bill, where there are many popular ideas thrown into a bill that most Congressmen would agree with. However, there are also unpopular ideas that are secretly "hidden" in the bill (for example, a bill can be so long and there could be a short deadline that Congressmen must meet). Thus, this is a way for the minority in Congress to secretly pass laws that would not be agreed upon by the majority of Congress. What I also learned from watching this video in class was what a filibuster was. A filibuster is a strategy in preventing a bill from being passed by delaying time, that has existed even in the time of the Founding Fathers. This means a person holds the floor for as long as he or she could and cannot stop talking while standing the whole time. Many people have argued that filibusters obstruct progress and thus should be removed. However, filibusters serve an important purpose of allowing people, or Congressmen, to fight for what they believe in. Filibusters are very difficult to conduct, and if a person is willing to hold a filibuster and stand up for something he or she believes in, then they should be allowed to do this. Also, filibusters have existed from the time of the Founding Fathers, and are a tradition in the Senate. Filibusters represent the idea of democracy and allow Congressmen to exercise their freedom of speech and expression. Thus, filibusters should not be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteThis episode reveals many of the boring parts about lawmaking. First of all, who knew their were multiple types of laws that are passed with different restrictions? An open bill has actually no restrictions, people can add amendments, these bills tend to get more votes while on the floor. Another type of bill is a closed bill, it is opposite of an open bill; it has complete restriction on it. No additions may be made nor can there be any changes; these bills need alot of support from it's sponsor to get the necesary votes. A Omnibus bill is a bill with multiple purposes. Some of the purposes may be unpopular but some may be very popular so they usually get a lot of votes. A christmas tree bill is a bill has so many additions and changes it becomes too expensive and never gets passed. Nobody likes christmas tree bills. I believe that filibusters should be kept in our senate. They were part of the foundation of this country and they are a way to exercise democracy, they should not be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteThis episode showed a lot of the behind the scenes to law making. It is a very long, intensive process that goes through many levels of government. Many steps must be taken just for the simplest of bills to be past. There are research committees, standing committees, and so on that a bill must go through to be ratified. On to filibusters, I think they are important and display the Constitutional right of democracy. It gives the minority party time to come up with a revised version of the bill. They have as much time as the filibuster can hold the floor.
ReplyDeleteAfter Watching this episode I learned a lot about how much goes into making a law. I learned that a bill can be comprised of many other bills due to pork barrel legislation. This detail about pork barrel legislation also gave me insight on why bills become so expensive. Another piece of information that I learned was that one strong willed individual can stop a whole bill be preforming a filibuster. After watching this episode I believe that filibusters should be outlawed. Although filibusters take a lot of strength to pull off I feel that one individual shouldn't be able to stop a whole bill be reading a cook book(which ins't even related to politics). I feel that filibusters also take away from the democratic processes by allowing the minority to force its will over the majority.
ReplyDeleteI've learned that the process of lawmaking is more complex than imagined and extremely stressful and pressing on those involved in the process. This episode also revealed the mindfulness required in crafting legislation due to the risk of reopening up a bill making it vulnerable to pork barrel legislation, where multiple other costly bills are tagged onto a single bill. The impact of a filibuster can essentially overturn a majority's will at the expense of time to discuss other affairs. However, filibusters give the minority a chance to voice their opinions despite being the minority and so, they should be allowed. Furthermore, a filibuster doesn't always guarantee that the outcome will go in the minority's way; it depends on how strongly they feel or support the certain topic. In this episode, Senator Stackhouse's will allowed him to hold the floor for more than eight hours to pass an addition to the bill for autism research funding. -Michelle Fong
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video in class, I learned how complex our government system is. I saw how, instead of just talking it out and coming to an agreement on a bill, a 70 year old man had to stand and talk for 8 straight hours until finally getting a break. But, the video also showed how involved congressmen get and what they'll do to get something passed that they believe in. I liked how we were able to see everything that was talked about in class in action in the video. Personally, although it's constitutionally acceptable to perform a filibuster, I think it's a waste of time. If the Senate had a limit on the amount of time spent talking or more control, like in the House of Representatives, then things would get done at a quicker pace. So, I think filibusters should be unconstitutional. They waste everyone's time and get in the way of what congress is actually supposed to be doing.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the episode of West Wing in class, I learned that when it comes to the Senate, compromise seems inevitable as different individuals add their own ideas to a bill that is being passed to get what they want. Also, in extreme cases as seen in the episode, a filibuster may occur long enough to prevent the vote from occurring at that moment or until the individual doing the filibuster gets what they want added to the bill. Seeing all of the concepts discussed in class put into a visual representation made it much easier to understand the complexity of law-making. Although both parties have made motions to remove filibusters from the Senate, I believe it would not be beneficial to remove them. If filibusters could not occur, there would be no need to compromise for the majority party in office. Without the filibuster, the minority party would not be heard. As a result, the majority party would get almost everything they want, while the minority party gets virtually nothing.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode, I learned about the lengthy process of creating and passing a bill. After a bill has been written, the process of approving the bill begins. When trying to pass a bill, different methods such as logrolling, pork barrel legislation, and earmarks are used to gain votes. When trying to pass a bill, it can be advantageous to have an open bill. An open bill gives other Senators the ability to add to the bill. This will help gain votes to pass the bill, but it will also make the bill more expensive. A Christmas tree bill is an example of an open bill that has numerous additions. A closed bill is not open for change. This makes the bill less expensive but it also makes it harder to pass the bill. I also learned about filibusters. Filibusters are when a Senator or group of Senators hold the senate floor for an extended period of time to kill a bill or to negotiate and bring awareness to a specific topic.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, filibusters should not be removed from the Senate law making process. Filibustering is an important democratic tool in the Senate. It allows the minority party to express their opinions and gives them leverage in the law making process. Without the ability to filibuster, minority groups would have little to no influence in making a bill. Filibustering gives Senators the ability to speak out for what they believe in and potentially gain the support of other Senators.
After watching the video in class, I learned about different types of bills and the strategies that are used to gain support of legislation. The complexity of the lawmaking process is much more intense than I thought. It is tricky to pass a bill because different people want to make adjustments to it or throw other things into it. In the episode we watched in class, a Senator filibustered for eight hours to delay the vote on a law. Filibusters can ultimately kill a bill or bring attention to a certain issue. Filibusters should not be removed because they give the minority party the power to influence legislation and prevent legislation that they whole-heartedly disagree with.
ReplyDeleteFrom this video, I learned much about the processes behind lawmaking. The White House can write their own resolution and send it to Congress for consideration; te legislative liaison would then work with the legislature to produce laws (considered 101 Senator). The Chief of Staff, who is chosen by the president, has the ability to run the White House if the president isn't there. Omnibus bills are multifaceted; if one part is unpopular and is associated with other popular parts of the bill, then the unpopular part will most likely be passed through. Joint committees produce reports and tend to be temporary. In a closed bill, there are no amendments, and no room for debates; less likely to be passed. In an open bill, any congressman or Senator can add an amendment (most of the time it's Pork Barrel Legislation); the bill tends to get to the floor much faster and the original bill may be passed with a bunch of amendments. Overall, the complexity of making and passing laws was much more than I imagined. The existence of the filibuster ensures that the minority party gets a chance to try to change the end product, which would contribute to possibly an improved result that is welcomed by both parties. Though it may slow down the good ideas as well, it requires legislators to build political bridges, making the competing forces work together and find common ground. In the present, it's even more important that our nation unite.
ReplyDeleteIn the episode of west wing we watched during class, the idea of a filibuster was introduced as well as various bill terminology such as christmas tree bills which are open bills with so many other various legislature attached that they become too expensive and eventually fail to get passed. An open bill is a bill that can be added upon with amendments, while a closed bill cannot have any amendments added to it which limits things like pork barrel legislation. I think that filibusters should be allowed in the Senate because, without such a concept, minority party ideas may never be heard. A filibuster is used to try to stop a bill from passing by running out the time for it to be voted on. They allow smaller ideas to be heard and for majority party leaders to understand that they have to appease both parties, not just their own, so that they can have an effective bill.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode, I learned about different types of bills and how difficult it is to actually pass a bill. I also learned how a filabuster can be an effective way of killing a bill. Although filabusters are effective, they should be removed from senate lawmaking procedures because it is an unfair way to wait out an unwanted bill until it expires. Someone against a certain bill can go on the stand and speak for however long they want in order to have an unwanted bill expire, which seems unprofessional as well as unfair for all lawmakers in congress.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode, I learned what a long and complex process lawmaking really is. Compromise is often difficult to varying opinions in the houses. Lawmaking is made even more complex through tactics like pork barreling in which various costly bills are tagged onto a single bill making it very expensive. A Christmas tree bill is a clear example of the unfavorability of this tactic. With a filibuster, the minority gets an opportunity to voice their opinion on a bill, therefore promoting democracy. I do not believe they should be taken away because they give Senators a chance to stand for what they believe in.
ReplyDeleteFrom watching this episode, I learned that lawmaking is a complicated and convoluted process that entails a great deal of strategy and effort. Lawmaking is not necessarily cordial and can involve a substantial amount of knowing how the other side will react to what you say and do. A filibuster can occur in the Senate, but not in the House of Representatives because the house is more formal and the speaker of the house can set a time limit or gavel a person off from speaking. Filibusters have never been done by one person except for William Jennings Bryan in 1913. I learned that the rules of a filibuster are that a Senator may keep the floor as long as they hold the floor, cannot eat, cannot drink, cannot leave the chamber, cannot sit down, and cannot lean on anything or anyone.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Democratic and Republican Parties have made motions to eliminate filibusters while they held a majority in the Senate. Between 2008-2010, when the Democrats held a majority, they attempted to pass bill that would eliminate filibusters. Since 2010, many members of the Republican party have offered numerous bills to try to end filibusters. Many of these bills generally try to form a coalition to try to expire the bill, or “talk the bill to death.” Both parties have made motions to eliminate filibusters when they hold the majority because filibusters can waste time, undermine the principle of democratic majority rule, and burden the majority party. Additionally, procedures for filibusters are not included in the Constitution.
Filibusters should not be removed from Senate law making procedures. First, filibusters raise public awareness of issues that could otherwise be figuratively swept under the rug. Second, some matters that can be argued or articulated through a filibuster need to be addressed. Christmas tree bills, bills on which amendments are hung like ornaments, are such examples. These amendments must be analyzed because, without this check system, Senators and those they owe favors to can include legislation that can cost millions or dollars. Also, these amendments can include unconstitutional aspects and so they should be discussed before the bill is voted upon because it will save time and resources down the road if or when the Supreme Court must hold a case to determine the constitutionality of the bill after a problem occurs. Fourth, filibusters help protect the voice and will of the minority idea in a system in which ideas that are not well known can fade without support. Fifth, filibusters can prevent unconstitutional or inordinately expensive components of omnibus legislation from ever being passed intentionally or unintentionally. A piece of omnibus legislation is a multifaceted law that does multiple things. Omnibus legislation can combine popular ideas with unpopular ideas and, thus, filibusters can prevent the premature passing of unpopular ideas that are too extreme for the American electorate to support or abide. Even though many people view the filibuster as an excellent way to waste the Senate’s time, if a supermajority of Senators (60 or more) believe the idea or matter to be truly irrelevant, they can issue a cloture and cease the filibuster. This prevents the Senate from truly wasting time because, sometimes, the only time Congress can determine if an issue is worthy of lengthy discussion or an extended filibuster is after the discussion or filibuster takes place.
This episode has showed me the truths behind lawmaking and and the thought that goes into the creation of each bill. I learned the difference between open and closed bills. That being that in an open bill legislators can add more to the bill to get it more votes, while in a closed bill no amendments can be made. Open bills can sometimes turn into Christmas tree bills because they accumulate so many clauses that they become too expensive to put into action. I also learned about various legislative strategies such as the use of an omnibus bill, in which something that is popular is branded with something that isn't. This strategy was utilized as far back as the Compromise of 1850. Filibusters are a more strenuous way for legislators to voice their opinions. During a filibuster the speaker cannot sit or take a break until there is nothing more to say on the topic. Filibusters should not be removed because they give legislators a chance to call attention to the issue at hand and they force other legislators to listen to their case.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the show, I learned how complicated the lawmaking process is. There are many factors which affect whether a law is passed or not. Also, I learned that one person in congress, no matter who they are, can have a great influence on the creation and passing of a bill. For example, one individual in the senate can filibuster a law, meaning that they will do everything in their power to hold the senate floor for as long as they can, in order to run the time out for a bill to be voted on. Filibusters should not be removed from the senate law making process because it allows individuals to really stand up for what they believe in. Also, filibusters ensure every individual in the senate has a fair and equal opportunity regarding the passing of laws.
ReplyDeleteThis episode of The West Wing allowed me to realize how long and drawn out the law making process can be. I also saw how much power a minority power has even though they technically have less say. Filibusters can definitely be frustrating, especially to the majority power but I believe that it is necessary in order to keep a balance and check the majority power when needed.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have taken away from this episode is that both majority and minority parties are able to have a say in the process of making a bill into a law, despite who is heading it. Filibusters are actions taken (such as reading speeches) in order to delay a legislative action from taking place. They allow for the voice of the minority to be heard before the senate casts their vote. Once the minority party representative feels that they have been heard, they can give up the floor and allow the bill to continue passing through legislature. Although many try to abolish filibusters due to their ability to hold up the senate for days at a time, I believe that they should be allowed within the law-making process due to the fact that they allow the voice of the minority to be heard and represented. Representation of all groups is highly important when passing bills that could become laws, affecting the lives of many: it is important that all people affected by a law are represented during the process of creating it. (Erin Ryan)
ReplyDeleteDuring the Stackhouse Filibuster episode of west wing I learned the power of the individual in the lawmaking process. That one individual can essentially stop a law from being passed with simply the will to do so. Also I learned some of the tactics used to pass a bill that will trade sections of bill in exchange for votes. The filibuster should not be removed from the law making process because although possible it is very unlikely for a bill to be stopped at the will of only one person. Usually a few or more people have to be against the bill to actually succeed in filibustering the bill. These are the fundamentals of democracy, in which the people can step up and voice their thoughts and opinions whether through words or actions such as a filibuster
ReplyDelete~Chris Toma
This particular episode allowed me to further understand the process of a filibuster as well as the major complications and steps it takes in order for a filibuster to be successful. There are a lot of events that take place behind the scene that are very significant. I learned that an Omnibus Bill has more than one purpose to fulfill and combines popular and unpopular ideals causing those to compromise for what they want out of it. A open bill allows anyone to dress what they are in favor for and is very flexible in the sense that it is possible to modify and reshape the bill if needed. On the contrary, a closed bill is simply votes and there are no adjustments made after the bill is admitted and happens to be more of a quicker bill to pass.An open bill could potentially allow for a Christmas tree bill due to the fact everyone starts adding more and more to the bill and it becomes unaffordable and unrealistic. I do think that filibusters should be eliminated in the Senate due to how extensive the rules are during the process. The person upholding the filibuster has to maintain the floor and cannot leave until they are done. The individual cannot do anything such as eat or have a drink or to even use the bathroom. The circumstances are tedious and it makes it very difficult to manage a filibuster. Filibusters cause major set backs for the bills trying to be passed.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode, I learned a little bit about how complicated lawmaking actually is. One reason is due to the differences between the Senators. Many people believe that just because there is a majority of one party in the Senate, passing legislation is made easy. Although true in some cases, in others differences within the same party may pose challenges. I do not believe that filibusters should be removed. Filibusters allow for the minority party to have their voice count. Without them, the majority party would dominate and the opposition from the opposing party would be meaningless. It makes sense when one party has the majority they would want to eliminate filibusters but I believe filibusters help to preserve democracy.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode in class, I learned a lot about the process of lawmaking and how hard it can be to get a law passed. If a bill is closed, no amendments can be added, and thus no extra money is spent, however, it is much harder to get the bill passed. If a bill is open everyone wants different amendments to be added into the bill, which becomes very costly. When too many things are added to the bill, it won't be passed, which is called a Christmas tree bill. Filibusters should be allowed, because it gives the minority party a say in lawmaking. In addition, there are very strict rules to a filibuster, such as not being able to stop talking, no sitting, no leaning on anything, and no eating or drinking. Therefore, if the congressman doesn't feel strongly enough about the issue, there's no way the filibuster will work.
ReplyDeleteIn the episode of west wing we watched during class, many ideas are introduced, a filibuster for example as well as various bill terminology such as christmas tree bills which are open bills with so many legislature ideas attached that they become too expensive and eventually lead to the bill failing to get passed. An open bill is a bill that is open to have amendments added, while a closed bill cannot have any amendments added to it which limits concepts such as pork barrel legislation.
ReplyDeleteI think that filibusters should be allowed in the Senate because, without them, the minority party's ideas may never be heard. A filibuster is used to try to stop a bill from passing by running out the time for it to be voted on. They allow smaller ideas to be heard and for majority party leaders to understand that they have to appease both parties, not just their own, so that they can have a bill that pleases everyone and is more likely to be passed.
After watching this episode, I learned that the process of law-making is very challenging and lengthy and you have to be very strong to do so. While watching this video, I further enhanced my knowledge on filibusters. During a filibuster, you must speak for as long as you can while you're holding the floor without any breaks, sitting, leaning on anything, or eating. The purpose of filibusters is to make an attempt to stop a bill from being voted on which is a very challenging and strategic thing to do. I believe that filibusters should be allowed because it lets your voice be heard by everyone and it honors the true definition of democracy.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the film, I learned many different things about the law making process. I learned that in order to make a law, there are many people involved in all branches of the government. It is not just the House or the Senate single handedly proposing and passing a bill. A filibuster is when someone tries to hold the floor to prevent a vote from happening. These can only happen in the Senate because the House is more formal and mainly use time limits when voting and is also controlled by the Speaker. Filibusters should not be removed because that would be removing one of the major distinctions between the House and the Senate. The majority would rule across both the House and the Senate. Filibusters are good for giving the minority a say and giving them power to actually make a change.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode, I learned that the process of law making is much more stressful and involved than how an outsider might think. Trying to put in as much as what everyone wants is extremely difficult, and that a lot of compromise and patience is needed. I believe filibusters should not be banned because it allows for voices to be heard that may otherwise be ignored.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the episode of West Wing in class, I realized that the law making process is much more complex than what I had thought. The movie clear showed the idea and use of a filibuster and the rules of it. A person can keep the floor as long as they keep talking while standing. This tactic is used when a member of the senate or the house doesn't get their way on a bill. This could led to a bill becoming a Christmas tree bill in which many amendments are added to the bill in order to make all the members happy. This causes a bill to be too expensive and the bill becomes terminated. This causes certain bills to become closed or open bills. Closed Bills cannot be changed and no amendments can be added, while open bills can. Should filibusters be removed? I think it would be better to remove filibusters because it slows down the law making process and can cause helpful bills to not become Christmas Tree bill and eventually become terminated. -Michael Lam
ReplyDeleteAfter watching an episode of the West Wing focused on the subject of filibusters, I have learned that the law making process is complex and elaborate. Getting a bill passed, I have come to learn, is complicated and requires an enormous amount of compromise and patience. This was seen in the additions made to the bill in the episode when it was open. There are many aspects to getting bills through Congress, and the concept of the filibuster is something that makes it even harder. Understandably, each party in a time when they controlled congress have attempted to eliminate the filibuster, but were unsuccessful. In my opinion, the filibuster should not be eliminated. It gives the minority party the ability to check the majority party and is also a part of the political culture in the United States. It may create more obstacles in the law making process by allowing the minority party to prevent voting on a bill, but due to the strict rules of a filibuster it is apparent that politicians will only use this as a last resort.
ReplyDeleteThrough this episode of The West Wing, I have learned a variety of things about the lawmaking process. By watching a filibuster take place through the eyes of politicians and people involved in the process, I learned that law-making is very much a unified process between all branches of Congress. A filibuster, which is a specific practice in the law-making process, can only take place in the Senate because of the House's strict rules of conduct. I also learned about many other terms, like White House Resolutions, liaisons, omnibus situations, and many more. Filibusters should not be eliminated from the Senate because it is a practice that gives the minority party a chance to fight for what they believe in. While it is certainly a time-consuming process, it is certainly not a waste of time, because it is a practice used as a last resort when a party feels as if their view needs to be heard.
ReplyDeleteIn this episode I learned that just because the majority party has control, it does not mean all bills will get rejected or passed. The minority party can use tactics such as filibusters to get things added to a bill or removed and impacts the lawmaking process. I believe filibusters should be removed since it is a democracy and if the majority believe one thing then that is what should happen. Filibusters seem more unprofessional as the people holding the filibuster will just read cookbooks or a telephone book to get what they want.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching this episode of the West Wing in class I learned how long and difficult it could be to make a law. Anytime this many people have to agree on an argument will cause differences in view points, but a filibuster could completely sway the passing of a bill. In the Senate a filibuster is a group of people who hold the floor for as long as possible to stop or delay the voting on a bill. Also when a bill is being made it could turn into a Christmas Tree bill in an attempt to please as many voters as possible. Eventually the tree becomes filled with too many "ornaments" or additions too the bill that it just collapses. I think that filibusters should not be removed. Although yes they are a major time consumer, filibusters are necessary to give the minority party a chance to let their voices be heard more strongly. ~ John Probst
ReplyDeleteI learned that the Senate and House of Representative members work long and hard hours to make sure that they fight for what they believe in and represent the people they worked hard to gain votes from. It's difficult sometimes being a member of the minority party however, and sometimes methods like filibusters are very necessary to get a point across or to show your feelings toward an issue. In the episode, the man looking to get his law passed had previously gotten votes by giving out favors and adding on to his own bill. When asked by another person to extend his bill for money for children's diseases, an agreement wasn't reached. This shows what happens in politics today and how filibusters almost even out the Christmas Tree bills that occur. They are necessary to level out the playing field for minority Parties, and others who strongly believe against bills. -Hannah marose
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this video of the West Wing, I learned how in depth the law making process in the US is. There are so many different groups of people that want different things it becomes hard to get what you actually want. People in congress always have to compromise on something if they want a bill to pass. I personally do think that filibusters have a rightful place in the law making process. They provide the minority party a chance to stand up for their policies and they stop the majority party from completely controlling congress. Filibusters serve as a neccessary form of checks and balances within .
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode of West Wing in class, I have come to a greater understanding of the lawmaking process in congress. This episode displayed how long and tedious the lawmaking process is in both houses of congress, and showed how filibusters are used to delay or block the voting on a specific bill. Getting one bill approved by a majority of congress is extremely difficult and time consuming, considering many people will disagree. Another problem congress runs into is deciding whether to have an open or closed bill. If a bill is open, it is free to add additional provisions to the original bill, consequently making the bill very costly. An overly expensive bill will usually get rejected. The alternative is having a closed bill, which will have to pass as it is written by the committee and no additional rider legislations can be added to the original bill. Closed bills tend to have a harder time being approved than open bills. I personally believe filibusters should be removed from Senate lawmaking procedures. Filibusters are counterproductive for congress in regards to promoting debate about specific issues. Moreover, a majority vote should determine if a bill is passed or dies, it should not be left to how long someone can stand on the podium, effectively talking a bill out. ~Matthew St. Jeanos
ReplyDeleteI have learned that the law making process is very time consuming and takes a lot of people to have the government function properly the way it is intended. I personally think the Filibuster is very helpful for the exact reason shown in the Show West Wing. Stackhouse had a valid reason to filibust. If you do not have a valid reason it should not be allowed.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode, I learned a lot about the making of a law. The episode’s main topic was about filibusters, which is when someone can hold the floor for as long as they want in order to prevent the passing of a law. However, they cannot eat, sit, drink, or lean, and have to keep constantly talking. This allows the minority party to have more of a say in whether or not a law will be passed, as long as they follow the filibuster rules. I also learned the difference between a closed bill and an open bill. In an open bill, any senator or congressman can add to the law, and a lot of the time uses pork barrel legislation to get it to the floor faster. In a closed bill, the bill comes to the floor as is, and is less likely to be passed. I believe that filibusters should not be removed from Senate law making procedures because it allows the minority party a greater voice in the passing of a law. They have been used for hundreds of years and to stop now would be unfair.
ReplyDeleteI learned about the fillibuster, a vital means of voicing the minority voice in the United States Senate. Although portrayed as a strain on many of the characters on the show, it is also seen as necessary in allowing the Senator Horward Stackhouse to effectively voice his opinion and take a stand. Furthermore, I learned the difference between an open and closed bill, the overbearing prevalence of earmarks and port barreling and the real power of conference committees. Ultimately, the fillibuster is deeply rooted in American Senatorial tradition, in addition to serving a practical and necessary legislative role. Without the fillibuster, in today's state of partisan politics, it would be incredibly difficult for the minortity party to voice their view and check the rest of the senate majority. Therefore, the fillibuster should remain.
ReplyDeletePork*
DeleteAfter watching the video in class I learned that that the law making process can take a while. Along with many people are involved in making it possible. When a bill is closed and reopened it has a harder time passing as people will add more onto it. I also believe that a filibuster is a good thing. It allows the majority party not to do radical when they have the power. It is another form of checks and balances that forces compromises between the parties. Although it causes the law making process to be longer it is a good and powerful tool the minority party can use.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video in class on the Stackhouse filibuster I learned that making a law is a much longer and more complicated process than I originally thought it was. There are multiple levels that the bill has to go through and many people will try to hang their own ornaments onto a bill if it is open for discussion which may make it to expensive to pass. I learned that making a law is also a very delicate process because if the budget gets to high the bill fails but if their aren't enough votes for the bill it fails. Filibusters should be allowed because it gives a voice to the minority party instead of them being dominated by the majority all the time, they may sometimes be able to get there way. Or at least make sure that their issues with the bill are heard.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the episode on the Stackhouse filibuster I learned that the process of making a law is much more involved and complicated than one would think. As time goes on, a bill has more issues passing as more items are added. Special interest groups and congressmen will push for their additions, and if someone deems the law unfit, they will not allow to pass; through voting if they are in the majority, and through filibuster if they are the minority. Filibusters should not be removed from the Senate as they provide a way for the minority to have their voice heard and to prevent one party from passing one-sided legislation.
ReplyDeleteThe episode depicts the tedious process that must take place in order for a bill to be passed. These bills are also edited by legislatures often, each of which may attempt to pork barrel for their district, all of which makes the bill require more funding. I believe the filibuster should remain in the law making process, because it is a tactic that checks the power of the majority party. Without it, the majority party would be able to pass law after law, uncontested, which would not be very democratic, and no compromises would be made. However, I do believe the filibuster should be revised, where instead of talking the bill to death, it can be edited so that the main focus of the bill is passed and the minority party is appeased.
ReplyDeleteAlex Cambria
DeleteThe episode depicts the tedious process that must take place in order for a bill to be passed. These bills are also edited by legislatures often, each of which may attempt to pork barrel for their district, all of which makes the bill require more funding. I believe the filibuster should remain in the law making process, because it is a tactic that checks the power of the majority party. Without it, the majority party would be able to pass law after law, uncontested, which would not be very democratic, and no compromises would be made. However, I do believe the filibuster should be revised, where instead of talking the bill to death, it can be edited so that the main focus of the bill is passed and the minority party is appeased.
ReplyDeleteHaving warched the video on the Stackhouse filibuster, I learned of the long and tedious process in which a bill becomes a law. This process contrasts that of my original understanding, being quick and painless. There are several varying levels that a bill must pass through and along the way, people make their own adjustments and "hang their own ornaments". This delicate process is easily disturbed and in many, if not most cases, the bill dies. In regards to the argument presented against filibusters, I feel as though they should be allowed, as they provide a voice for the minority, diluting the majority who normally dominates the allotted time.
ReplyDeleteThe Episode of the West Wing that we watched in class shows how hard it is to work on bills. Throughout the episode it is depicted how a filibuster works and how long and time consuming this process can be. By having the episode take place during the long filibuster shows how hard it is to make bills and how it's even harder to get the bills passed.
ReplyDelete