Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Discussion Filibuster rules are placed to delay or entirely prevent an action from being taken on a bill in the senate through unlimited debate.
It allows members of the senate to advance the debate on a bill until at least two thirds of the senate reach an agreement and get to vote. Many have argued against the effects of this rule on America’s progress now that the majority parties in the senate seem to be undermining the minority. The senate has the closest ties to the people hence is better positioned to advocate for their rights. Historically, the filibuster has worked well for America, for it has prevented bills from being passed without majority support and informed deliberations. This ensures that voters do not have legislations forced down on them. It is especially so because the majority may use their nominal status to pass bills that have not been adequately debated, as a show of their control in the senate. Although it may seem like the rule stalls legislative processes, the time ‘wasted’ on it helps in preventing a state of tyranny in the senate whereby the majority tramples minority.
However, the rule also helps to shed light on congress’ ability to handle the nation’s problems. It does so by highlighting its weaknesses. This is demonstrated in the way some majority members use the filibuster rule for self-advantage instead of first advancing the concerns of the American voter. In recent times, there have been attempts to alter this rule by reducing the number of legislators needed to block a filibuster. Overall, the rule helps the congress to address the voter’s problems in a better manner by preventing rash legislations from being made and drawing the voter’s wrath.