The unconstitutional filibuster

It’s time to limit the unconstitutional filibuster. We are a Constitutional Republic with a legislature that is supposed to pass bills. It’s the President’s job to sign or veto bills and he can sway public opinion. The Constitution has some clearly defined rules for certain types of bills. The Vice President has the deciding vote whenever the Senate is evenly divided (Article 1, section 3). Impeachment must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate (section 3). "[A] Majority of [Congress] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business" (section 5). Congress can expel one of its members with 2/3 vote (section 5). Congress must keep a record of the 'Yeas' and 'Nays' on a vote if 1/5 of the members request it (section 5). "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills" (section 7). "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (section 7). It requires a 2/3 vote from Congress to overturn a veto (section 7). "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted), after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law" (section 7). Treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate (Article 2, section 2).

I can understand how there are positive aspects of divided government and a higher vote threshold, because it can help to protect our rights and prevent hasty legislation. However, the proper method is to pass an amendment that adjusts the vote requirements. The current Senate rule of mandating 60 votes is nearly impossible to achieve. The House doesn’t seem to have a similar restriction. Sometimes there are important bills that need to be passed: treaties, budgets, appointments of judges, repeal of a bad law, declarations of war, and other examples. A filibuster should only be used to delay legislation and explain why it’s a bad idea and it shouldn’t be limited to just one speaker. The current approach of a 24-hour talkathon about any possible topic is a joke. It’s not healthy for a person to stay in one spot for that long without any breaks, and bringing up irrelevant information doesn’t improve the debate.

Once a bill has been evaluated and approved by the appropriate committees, it should be put to a vote. Congress has a very low approval rating now and sometimes our country faces low voter turnout. I think one of the reasons for the low Congressional approval is that it’s so difficult to pass a bill which just leads to bickering between both sides. A lot of people don’t vote because they feel like they don’t have any impact. I think if the majority was allowed to pass bills, people would have an incentive for their side to win elections. I think one of the reasons that President Obama likes to threaten executive action is because he realizes that Congress isn’t going to do anything. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. The cloture to end a filibuster was invoked for the first time in 1919. It originally required 2/3 of all senators, however it was so difficult to achieve that in 1975 the Democratic Senate majority reduced the requirement to a 3/5 vote. Only 13 state legislatures have a filibuster.