Woodrow Wilson was no fan of Senate filibusters:
“The Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” Woodrow Wilson, March 4, 1917.
The Democrats controlled the Senate from 1913-1919 and Wilson hated the way that Republicans could bottle up his proposed legislation through the filibuster. To mollify him, the Senate Democrats passed a rule change one hundred and eight years ago that allowed the termination of debate on a two-thirds vote to invoke cloture. Even after cloture, each Senator could speak for an additional hour on the matter under consideration before a vote was taken. Cloture existed more in theory than in practice. Over the next 46 years the Senate would vote for cloture only five times. There are several reasons why this was the case. (In 1975 the Senate reduced the cloture vote to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 votes.)
Filibusters added a touch of drama and comedy to otherwise dry proceedings. The public generally enjoyed them as did more than a few Senators. Many Senators prided themselves upon belonging to what they called the greatest deliberative body, and thought that the filibuster played an essential role in what made the Senate the Senate. Southern Democrats, relying on the filibuster to stop civil rights legislation, were fervent supporters of the filibuster. Many Senators realized that shifting political fortunes could turn a majority into a minority over night, and that the filibuster was the strongest tool of a minority.
The film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a paean to the filibuster. Ironically, cloture is never mentioned in the film, since a quick cloture vote would have taken the drama away from the Mr. Smith’s one man filibuster, although many Southern Senators did traditionally vote against cloture on the first vote, no matter what matter was under consideration, to show their support for the filibuster as a legislative device.
Woodrow Wilson was a one world government advocate and a traitor to American sovereignty, with contempt for freedom and the people.
I loved “Mr. Smith”. It was not only so great just because of the moral example of Mr. Smith, so upstanding and so determined, but in the end of the movie the evil was revealed when the conscience of the leading bad guy began to work.
We can still pray for consciences to prevail in our three branches and various departments.
Somebody somewhere will start to remember that momma and daddy reared them to be good…
“Woodrow Wilson was a one world government advocate and a traitor to American sovereignty, with contempt for freedom and the people.”
Wilson was a racist and a big government man, but he was not an advocate for world government nor was he a traitor to American sovereignty. His dislike of the filibuster is a fairly common belief of Presidents when their party controls the Senate.
Of course, Wilson was right. It’s a silly practice to have a Senator standing there reciting from the Biloxi City Directory for hours on end. Rules revisions introducing the Cadillac filibuster 40 years ago (which required saying ‘no’ at intervals and did not require marathon speaking) made the situation worse, as did the extension of ‘holds’ on nominees (initially a practice meant to delay action for a few days so that Senators would not be tied to the chamber) into a license for louts like Richard Shelby to anonymously gum up the works for months on end.
The. U.S. Senate is an awful institution, and the sooner it’s abolished, the better.
It is time for faithful Catholics to coalesde as a group that clings to truths taught by orthodox teachers intheir past, and be deaf to the current Pope and his deformed henchmen,priests, bishopd and cardinals. Deliverance will come.
“Wilson was a racist and a big government man, but he was not an advocate for world government nor was he a traitor to American sovereignty” Wilson was the inventor of the League of Nations concept, the forerunner of the United Nations. The UN would take over the world if they could and make subjects of all American citizens, taxing us and running our government without our Constitution. Wilson had contempt for our Constitution. Doing away with our Constitution would have made Wilson happy.
The League of Nations had very little in common with the contemporary United Nations and blaming Wilson for the contemporary United Nations is rather akin to blaming Abraham Lincoln for a modern race riot. As for the Constitution, Wilson thought it needed to be updated through amendment, as it was while he was President. He never gave any indication that he hated the Constitution. I have very little liking for Wilson as a historical figure, but fair is fair, and Wilson has been recently savaged by some really poor historical scholarship, much of it promoted by the lunatic Glenn Beck. There is ample ground for criticizing Wilson without lying about him.
True. I did believe that Wilson was the father of what is going on in our colleges and universities, now. I will have to research more on what Wilson taught about our Constitution having to be replaced. SEE: Amendment Nine.
I am no fan of the filibuster either, but all you have to do is look north of the border or to the UK to see what happens when an effectively unicameral legislature becomes the norm. Of course, they also have the executive linked to the legislative branch which further consolidates power.
Much of the Constitution Is about protecting the minority from the majority. It at least slows down the majority mob when they’re ready to start lynching giving passions time to cool. We probably should pray for this although the current environment reminds me a lot of that in 1860.
The founding fathers were so smart. One might say they were even divinely inspired.
Hmmm. Quite a lot here that could be said.
For the sake of brevity, …I’ll say this:
If Wilson was a racist, …so too have been Black, Hispanic, and Asian voices. …Women have been guilty of sexism as much as men. Plenty of vice about.
If We, the People, can’t agree, we can expect the UN won’t either. Yet we must remain there, if only to veto the worst ideas.
And, ..a Senate filibuster mostly means we lack an adequate consensus to move forward quickly.
I have been pleased with Trump’s efforts so far, yet I worry that Congress will falter. We can’t have a one-man show and expect all our problems solved.
I have been appalled these last many years by how Republicans will win an election, yet fail to be prepared to legislate. We know who won each race soon after Election Day. Those elected should surely be capable of setting priorities. They should be able to “hit the ground running” after Congress is sworn in.
If the minority party chooses to inflict a filibuster to block legislation, …those of the majority should organize campaigns for letter-writing, emailing, and phone-calling. …Or highlight the filibuster action during the next election. Or both.
Ultimately, these concerns demonstrate need for the Church to teach Christ’s love for all, our need to be accountable to Him. It also shows how our elected leaders need a bit of pestering now and then.