The Honorable Speaker of the House:

[myohmy2]

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/11722-1

" The problem is the filibuster. How can we allow a custom of the Senate stand in the way of the Constitution of the United States?

We have to – I say to our colleagues, whom I respect there: weigh the equities. Is it more important to honor the work of Dr. King, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, all the people that Dr. King shares residence with on the Mall? Or, is it more important to honor a custom? What a custom.

I said that the Constitution, rather than the custom, should reign. The Constitution says: simple majority, unless you are ratifying a treaty, you are convicting someone who was impeached or you are ratifying the Constitution. Otherwise, it's a simple majority. Why else would they have the Senate – the President of the Senate – the Vice President of the United States, breaking a 50-50 tie, if that were not fraught with meaning? "

" How can we allow a custom of the Senate stand in the way of the Constitution..."

...yes, how can we...

[kacekwl]

1. Seems pretty simple to me.

Same should go for the electoral college.

[lagomorph777]

12. And the Senate itself.

The Senate is structured as a highly anti-democratic institution; it was created to protect slavery.

However, baby steps. Dumping the EC and the Senate would require Constitutional amendments. Dumping the Filibuster only requires replacing SineManchin with Democrats.

[OMGWTF]

19. THIS! THIS! THIS!

It's inherently undemocratic to have two people representing fewer than 1M people in Wyoming, but California with >38M people only gets two. How dafuq is that representative democracy?

[Hekate]

2. KnR

[Lonestarblue]

3. The media should ask Manchin why his attitude toward the filibuster has changed since 2011.

"The legislative process in Washington has gotten so dysfunctional that it doesn't even make much sense at all anymore," Sen. Joe Manchin said in 2011. "We have become paralyzed by the filibuster."

Having the filibuster as the minority party during the Trump years didn’t help all that much. It was John McCain’s vote against overturning the ACA, not the filibuster, that protected that program. As for appointees, Trump stopped even going to the Senate and just creating acting roles. The filibuster benefits Republicans far more than Democrats because Republicans use it to make Democratic legislation fail, and then campaign on that failure, and because Republicans have no big policies they want to pass when they’re in charge. They have only three goals: pass tax cuts for the wealthy, stack the federal courts with right-wing extremist judges, and increase annual funding to the military, which becomes a pass-through wealth-making opportunity for the very wealthy shareholders of companies that form the military industrial complex.

[Joinfortmill]

7. This should be run on news outlets all day today.

[crickets]

21. This. All of this. nt

[CousinIT]

4. The mouse that roared...

[niyad]

5. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So simple, so obvious.

[Joinfortmill]

6. A voice of reason.

[XacerbatedDem]

8. I think the filibuster stands in the way of a free democracy, also.

We elect representatives to actually represent us, not hide behind customs that encourage them to sell us out for their own glory (or bank accounts). If these people believe in the filibuster so much, then put it up for a vote, a national referendum, a vote from the citizens of this nation, not just the Senate. It happens all the time in the States, referendums put before the actual voters. How come that never happens on national issues?

[Wounded Bear]

13. Requiring a super majority to do everything is not democratic...nt

[XacerbatedDem]

15. My point exactly.

[KS Toronado]

16. That's a excellent way of describing the problem with the filibuster

Wrote this down so I don't forget it.

[Wounded Bear]

17. That's what happened in California...

they passed a resolution that required everything to have a super majority to pass. Eventually, the people elected one consisting of Democrats and they started getting things done.

Doubt we could do that nationally, though, with all the red states living on bullshit.

[KS Toronado]

9. The best argument I've heard for eliminating the filibuster.

Seems the filibuster is nothing more than allowing the minority to rule the majority.

[c-rational]

10. +1

[OnDoutside]

11. The other is that it's only used negatively by the GOP, to block a just society.

[Wounded Bear]

14. The fillibuster has always been used to defend the most odius of public policies...

like slavery; and for blocking progress, specifically in civil rights legislation.

[OnDoutside]

18. 100% agree.

[tclambert]

20. The filibuster is unconstitutional.

Period. End of statement.