7 ms·

If the filibuster prompts further public discourse and a closer look at the use of lethal force without due process of law, it's positive. The real question wil

If the filibuster prompts further public discourse and a closer look at the use of lethal force without due process of law, it's positive. The real question will be if all of the other Senators vote for cloture just to get the issue swept back under the carpet. Impediments on the power of government aren't particularly popular to those who wield the power of government, regardless of the branch they occupy.

stevesearer 14y ago
Yeah, I've been wondering if it will amount to anything as well. My gut tells me that it won't. That said, I've had it running for around and hour and have found it interesting for no other reason than understanding how filibusters actually work. From what I can tell, he has just been spending time reading articles critical of drone strikes or reading other documents while providing commentary on them as he goes. He's even been taking time to eat a snack which provides comedic pauses in the listening experiences. Rand also gets small breaks from others who come forward to ask questions - most of which seem to be staged to help him cover additional points, reiterate his already made points, or just generally use up more clock. Based on the view behind him, it appears that all other senators need not be present while he speaks. Is that true and has this always been the case? I'd imagine that the tactic might be more compelling and useful if everyone had to sit there and listen.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I'm unfamiliar with the specific rules of Senate decorum, but no, I don't think any other Senators except whoever's presiding are required to be present. Senators would get very little done if they had to sit in the Senate Chamber any time any one of them had something he or she wanted to say. They're all pretty garrulous.
  - unclenoriega 14y ago
    This is true. The Senate assumes a quorum is present unless someone suggests the absence of a quorum, so as long as there's a designated president, they're good to go. There are several YouTube videos of pro forma sessions where just the presiding senator and staff are present.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  Lawrence Lessig provides a great description of how our representatives "rush in" in time to vote and then rush out immediately to make more phone calls to solicit contributions. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
- lmkg 14y ago
  The important thing to understanding filibusters is that they're a dirty, dirty hack. They were never really intended to be part of the legislative process, they're just some enterprising senators noticing and exploiting some loopholes in the senate's debate rules. While the House puts some limits on debates, to move things along, the Senate is a more deliberative body (by design) and therefore doesn't vote on an issue until it has been completely debated. There is no strict definition of "completely debated" beyond "someone still has something to say." As any half-awake hacker no doubt will notice, this means that you can prevent a law from getting voted on, and therefore passing, by simply not ending the debate. This is what a filibuster is. There are technically some restrictions around debate, and the band-aid fix that a supermajority vote can stop debate and bring a vote, but that's about the only thing stopping it in practice. The main technical restriction is that, if the Senate doesn't have anything else to do, any one Senator only gets one monologue. They can't stop one day, and then filibuster again the next day. This rule can be stretched, but not broken. Hence, the content of most filibusters tend to be long space-fillers, which is what you're seeing. There's also a rule that the debate must be 'on topic,' but that's too vaguely defined to be worth anything. Famously, one Senator said something to the effect of "this law is not in the interests of my constituents, who are as follows:" and then proceed to literally read the phone book for a few hours.
  - stevesearer 14y ago
    It's funny that you mention the space-fillers because Senator Ted Cruz is currently reading tweets that are supportive of Rand's filibuster.
  - hkmurakami 14y ago
    I seemed to recall someone reading a cookbook as part of his filibuster, but a phonebook seems 10x more likely. Thanks for the info!
    - wam 14y ago
      That was on The West Wing.
anigbrowl 14y ago
the use of lethal force without due process of law This canard has been debunked so many times on HN that I've lost count, but carry on as if the constitutional, legislative, ethical and historical justification for drone strikes had not been repeatedly explained in copious detail. It's much easier to pretend there's a conspiracy of silence and that nobody has ever stepped up to present an argument for the administration's position.
- camperman 14y ago
  Constitutional justification for drone strikes? Interesting claim. Any links?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168711 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168711 and about 500 other threads. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+constitutional+justification+for+drone+strikes http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+constitutio...
    - camperman 14y ago
      All I see here is the President granting himself and his administration powers to assassinate US citizens. This is NOT Constitutional in any shape or form. Never has been, no matter how many lists of exceptions there are. I can't find anything in the Constitution that allows him to do so, hence my question.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  The administration's position is, frankly, bullshit. It amounts to little more than the executive branch reserving for itself the ability to call any location outside of US territory a battlefield and to designate anyone they wish a threat worthy of summary execution. Now, all of this is couched in the most justifiable of terminology and is crafted to follow the broad outlines of judicial procedure but the fact remains that the administration has given themselves this authority and retain whatever oversight, if any, is involved with it. This is utterly antithetical to the principles set forth in our constitution and if any of the founding fathers were alive today I'm quite certain they would vomit at the idea.

stevesearer 14y ago

Yeah, I've been wondering if it will amount to anything as well. My gut tells me that it won't. That said, I've had it running for around and hour and have found it interesting for no other reason than understanding how filibusters actually work. From what I can tell, he has just been spending time reading articles critical of drone strikes or reading other documents while providing commentary on them as he goes. He's even been taking time to eat a snack which provides comedic pauses in the listening experiences. Rand also gets small breaks from others who come forward to ask questions - most of which seem to be staged to help him cover additional points, reiterate his already made points, or just generally use up more clock. Based on the view behind him, it appears that all other senators need not be present while he speaks. Is that true and has this always been the case? I'd imagine that the tactic might be more compelling and useful if everyone had to sit there and listen.

twoodfin 14y ago
I'm unfamiliar with the specific rules of Senate decorum, but no, I don't think any other Senators except whoever's presiding are required to be present. Senators would get very little done if they had to sit in the Senate Chamber any time any one of them had something he or she wanted to say. They're all pretty garrulous.
- unclenoriega 14y ago
  This is true. The Senate assumes a quorum is present unless someone suggests the absence of a quorum, so as long as there's a designated president, they're good to go. There are several YouTube videos of pro forma sessions where just the presiding senator and staff are present.
hkmurakami 14y ago
Lawrence Lessig provides a great description of how our representatives "rush in" in time to vote and then rush out immediately to make more phone calls to solicit contributions. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
lmkg 14y ago
The important thing to understanding filibusters is that they're a dirty, dirty hack. They were never really intended to be part of the legislative process, they're just some enterprising senators noticing and exploiting some loopholes in the senate's debate rules. While the House puts some limits on debates, to move things along, the Senate is a more deliberative body (by design) and therefore doesn't vote on an issue until it has been completely debated. There is no strict definition of "completely debated" beyond "someone still has something to say." As any half-awake hacker no doubt will notice, this means that you can prevent a law from getting voted on, and therefore passing, by simply not ending the debate. This is what a filibuster is. There are technically some restrictions around debate, and the band-aid fix that a supermajority vote can stop debate and bring a vote, but that's about the only thing stopping it in practice. The main technical restriction is that, if the Senate doesn't have anything else to do, any one Senator only gets one monologue. They can't stop one day, and then filibuster again the next day. This rule can be stretched, but not broken. Hence, the content of most filibusters tend to be long space-fillers, which is what you're seeing. There's also a rule that the debate must be 'on topic,' but that's too vaguely defined to be worth anything. Famously, one Senator said something to the effect of "this law is not in the interests of my constituents, who are as follows:" and then proceed to literally read the phone book for a few hours.
- stevesearer 14y ago
  It's funny that you mention the space-fillers because Senator Ted Cruz is currently reading tweets that are supportive of Rand's filibuster.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  I seemed to recall someone reading a cookbook as part of his filibuster, but a phonebook seems 10x more likely. Thanks for the info!
  - wam 14y ago
    That was on The West Wing.

anigbrowl 14y ago

the use of lethal force without due process of law This canard has been debunked so many times on HN that I've lost count, but carry on as if the constitutional, legislative, ethical and historical justification for drone strikes had not been repeatedly explained in copious detail. It's much easier to pretend there's a conspiracy of silence and that nobody has ever stepped up to present an argument for the administration's position.

camperman 14y ago
Constitutional justification for drone strikes? Interesting claim. Any links?
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168711 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168711 and about 500 other threads. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+constitutional+justification+for+drone+strikes http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+constitutio...
  - camperman 14y ago
    All I see here is the President granting himself and his administration powers to assassinate US citizens. This is NOT Constitutional in any shape or form. Never has been, no matter how many lists of exceptions there are. I can't find anything in the Constitution that allows him to do so, hence my question.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
The administration's position is, frankly, bullshit. It amounts to little more than the executive branch reserving for itself the ability to call any location outside of US territory a battlefield and to designate anyone they wish a threat worthy of summary execution. Now, all of this is couched in the most justifiable of terminology and is crafted to follow the broad outlines of judicial procedure but the fact remains that the administration has given themselves this authority and retain whatever oversight, if any, is involved with it. This is utterly antithetical to the principles set forth in our constitution and if any of the founding fathers were alive today I'm quite certain they would vomit at the idea.