The contemporary Senate
The contemporary Senate is highly partisan; polarization is evident. Majority leaders work hard to enact their parties' agendas. At the same time minority leaders' use the tools they have to try to block enactment of the majority agenda. The most important tool the Senate minority has is the filibuster. When the filibuster is used, bills cannot pass the Senate without sixty votes. Except in rare instances, this means that at least a few minority party votes are needed. When important bills are filibustered and die in the Senate, Democratic and Republican activists and others have called for Senate rule changes to abolish the filibuster. President Trump, at times when he was in office, supported abolition of the filibuster. President Biden was initially resistant but he too has endorsed abolishing the filibuster in some circumstances. Do you think the filibuster should be retained, or do you think it should be abolished? Explain and support your views.
Sample Solution
The U.S. Senate has always been a highly partisan institution, but in the past few decades, it has become increasingly so. As polarization within the chamber deepens and majority leaders work to enact their parties' agendas with ever-more urgency, minority leaders have sought ways to counter this momentum and protect their own interests. The most important tool available tothem is the filibuster, which requires sixty votes for most bills to pass into law—a number that almost invariably requires at least some minority party support. In recent years, many have called for an end to filibustering as a way of breaking through legislative gridlock caused by partisan divisions in the Senate; President Trump himself supported its abolition during his term in office. This raises an important question: should the filibuster be retained or abolished?
I believe that the filibuster should be retained because it serves as an effective check on majoritarianism in government and allows minority voices a platform from which they can influence policy decisions without necessarily needing majority consent. Though frustratingly slow at times, this process provides much needed protection against tyranny of the majority while still allowing bills with broad bipartisan appeal—such as those recently proposed by President Biden—to get through Congress with relative ease due to widespread support among both sides of aisle.
Furthermore, abolishing the filibuster would likely lead to more extreme policies being enacted than otherwise would be possible if every bill had only simple majorities behind it; making it easier for one side or another’s views on any given issue instead of having real bi-partisan compromise amongst Senators determining new legislation going forward each time around. This could also lead to more radical pieces of legislation passing without having been properly debated and discussed due to lack of time constraints leaving no room for amendments or other necessary revisions essential for good governance before becoming law . Lastly , we must remember that our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances designed specifically so that power was not concentrated in too few hands – something which abolitionist sentiments may inadvertently further erode away over time .
While I understand why some might advocate abolishing the filibuster as a solution towards greater political efficiency , I believe such a move could ultimately do more harm than good both politically and constitutionally speaking - thus arguing strongly against eliminating this critical safeguard currently present within our federal legislature .