Introduction
Before a bill is made into a law, several procedures must be followed by the different branches of government in the House. A statute begins as an idea that the House of Representatives sponsors as a bill. Before the president signs the enrolled bill. The bill, in this case, is assigned to the committee, which analyzes it. A date is therefore set for the bill to be voted on. After the process, if the bill passes, it is sent to the Senate, where a committee is assigned to debate it and vote. If the Senate decides to use a filibuster, such a bill may not reach the final phase for the president to veto the enrolled bill (Gutzman, 2017).
A filibuster is a tactic that a legislator uses to delay a debate so that a decision cannot be reached. Through a filibuster, the Senate is, therefore, in a position to prevent a debatable question, resolution, or amendment. In the USA, the tactic has consequently been used on several occasions and brings the debate about whether it should be maintained, reformed, or terminated. This paper discusses the US Senate filibuster and why it should be removed.
Racism and Justice Hindrance
The first reason for terminating the filibuster is because it is racist and stands in the way of justice. The filibuster is connected to racist policies and has adapted since it became known in the civil rights era. This is because some of the laws within the U.S. Constitution still do not promote equality and can be amended. This, thus, explains the slow progress in racial progress, seen in both the Southern Democrats Jim Crow era and the Republican Party of today, which have been using the delay tactic to shortchange the will people’s will (Klein, 2020). The earlier stand of the Southern Democrats and the present mindset of the Republican Party explain the history of the filibuster and its connection to racist policies.
Lack of Historical Merit
The U.S. Constitution should also terminate the filibuster because it does not have historical merit. This is because the filibuster is described as a belief. The idea is said to have originated from the 1789 constitution and was proposed by the farmers to help the Senate operate (Pallay et al., n.d.). This is false since the farmers rejected the idea and required supermajorities to do the legislation. This shows that the tactic is not constitutionally approved and could doom a republic. Additionally, the filibuster is historically known not to favor the supermajorities making it for them to put into practice their plan. This makes the filibuster make the supermajority votes deal with issues related to treaties making the simple majorities legislate. This prescription has existed for a long time, a matter in which the Constitution has been silent.
Overrepresentation of Minorities’ Interests
The third reason the filibuster should be done away with in the U.S. legislation is that it over-represents the interests of small minorities. This is because it is through the filibuster that minorities of senators are empowered and can surprisingly represent a small number of Americans. An example can be argued by scholars in the case of California and Wyoming. Each of these states is assigned two senators, and California has a population of about 40 million residents (Lau, 2020). On the other hand, Wyoming has approximately six thousand people. From the comparison, Wyoming has a representation sixty-eight times that of California (Lau, 2020). Based on the comparison, the filibuster legislation over-represents twenty-one states with fewer people, making up eleven percent of the American population (Lau, 2020). This means that a group of senators can use a filibuster to block a bill that the citizens are overwhelmingly supporting.
Promotes Obstructionism
Another reason why the U.S. Constitution should also terminate the filibuster is that it promotes obstructionism. During the Obama administration, the filibuster legislation was used by the Senate Republicans to obstruct democracy, a scenario that has not been witnessed before in history. The obstructionism, in this case, made the use of executive orders and other administrative tactics to maneuver Congress and allow specific bills to be passed (Gutzman, 2017). Through obstructionism, the Senate proves to be minoritarian, which projects that Americans represent only 30 percent of the Senate by 2040 (Gutzman, 2017). With the filibuster promoting a minoritarian Senate, the executive branch is put in a predicament; hence, it is shifting away from legislative duties because of the Senate obstruction. This makes the filibuster undermine democracy, a move that makes it a doom to the U.S.
Creates a Vicious Deadlock
A filibuster is also used to create a deadlock on various issues. In this case, the budget reconciliation rules can only pass with a defacto 60-vote requirement, a condition imposed by the filibuster, overruling the 51-vote need, which is constitutionally recognized. With a stalemate developed, maneuvers such as utilizing the budget application rules come into play. In such schemes, critics argue that the Senate, the governing body, is undermined when such maneuvers are implemented (Pallay et al., n.d.). The filibuster slows a debate and even makes it silent in the chambers. As a result, the checks and balances between the branches are undermined by the filibuster. An example is when the president is in a position to increase or wrongly use their veto powers. The move can be explained by the relative stagnancy of Congress, which puts it in opposition to checking the executive.
Contradicts American Political Science
The U.S. Constitution should also eliminate the filibuster because it goes against American political science. By analyzing the filibuster using Thomas Jefferson’s lens, amending the new constitution would be a walk in the park. If the government had implemented the ideas of Jefferson, the issue with filibusters would not have been there since it was not discussed in the Philadelphia convention (Gutzman, 2017). Also, the convention did not mention anything to do with the minority veto powers since Jefferson believed in laws coined by the population, which to him was the chief principle of American republicanism. According to the proposed Virginia plan, which was constituted by a bicameral legislature that would have veto power over state laws.
Conclusion
In conclusion, various issues need to be addressed in the chambers of the U.S. to demonstrate their ideas of the law and how it can be upheld, amended, and reformed. In doing so, various issues related to racial profiling, equality, defending the will of the people, police brutality, and healthcare reforms. Therefore, the problems cannot be addressed when the filibuster tactic is still in play, which is why it should be abolished. The unconstitutional filibuster qualifies for the tactic to be done away with to promote the people’s will. Making laws also expresses some of the ideas of the majority, and passing these ideas into law within a speculated time makes the American people trust in their system. Shortchanging the will of the people with a minority veto power does not promote the idea of political science and should be abolished. However, doing away with the tactic requires minds like that of Jefferson, which gives the majority the veto power to implement laws and allow the implementation of promises they gave to the citizens.
References
Gutzman, K. (2017). Eliminate the filibuster: Trust the people. The Ripon Society. Web.
Klein, E. (2020). The definitive case for ending the filibuster. Vox. Web.
Lau, T. (2020). The filibuster, explained. Brennan Center for Justice. Web.
Pallay, G., Anderson, D., Byrne, R., & Eucalitto, C. (n.d.). Arguments for and against the filibuster, 2021. Ballotpedia. Web.