Filibusters

The correct answer regarding issues of the US Constitution is "All taxation is theft! The Constitution is not a valid contract. State parasites don't recognize that individuals have the right to withdraw their consent."

Filibusters are an interesting legal technicality. Even though the US Constitution has no legitimacy, it's still an interesting technicality. The US Constitution says that only a simple majority is required to pass a law. There also is a clause saying that there is unlimited debate in the Senate. There also is a clause that says that the Senate may choose its own rules. The rules may be changed by a simple majority vote.

The Senate has adopted a rule that says 66 votes are required to change the rules. However, this rule may be changed by a majority vote.

Filibusters are not an original invention in the US Senate. In Rome, filibusters were a tactic.

When someone tried filibustering in the US Senate, a compromise was reached. If 60% of the Senators voted to end debate, then that ends the filibuster. However, this rule can be changed at any time by a simple majority vote. Threatening to do this is the "nuclear option".

The current filibuster rule sort of violates the Constitution. The Constitution says that a simple majority suffices to pass a law. The filibuster rule means that a 60% supermajority is required to pass a law.

The slaves have been brainwashed to believe the legitimacy of the filibuster rule. If it were changed, then the slaves might think that government parasites had grabbed more power.

With government, "Don't change the rules!" is an important principle. By having important rules be unchanged over time, this provides the illusion of legitimacy.

One "benefit" of the filibuster rule is that important new laws must be "bipartisan". The word "bipartisan" is an evil fnord. The most evil laws are supported by both parties.

Evil laws like the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the Bank Secrecy(spying) Act, and the Patriot Act are all bipartisan. Politicians from both parties support laws that increase their own power.

Originally, when a Senator wanted to filibuster, the filibustering group had to speak on the floor of the Senate 24x7 to prevent a vote. Now, all a Senator has to do is say "I'm filibustering!", and the Senate moves on to other things. That seems lazy.

I liked the idea that the Senate would be unable to do anything else during a filibuster. However, other acts of evil should not be interrupted for a minor dispute.

The filibuster rule could be changed at any time by a simple majority vote. This is the "nuclear option". Here's how that would work.

Suppose someone attempts a filibuster. One Senator could say "I propose that this filibuster to prevent a vote on this law is unconstitutional." The majority leader would say "Sorry, the filibuster rule allows it." The Senator could say "I request a vote of the full Senate." This would force an immediate vote. It would be voting on a parliamentary procedure, and not a law. This vote could not be filibustered. A simple majority vote is required to change the rule.

However, the vote to prevent a filibuster would be a permanent change in the Senate's rules. The slaves would know that the rules of the State had suddenly changed. Once the "nuclear option" is used, it's a precedent. Now, anyone can do it.

The majority party in the Senate could do this at any time. However, nobody wants to be the first to do it. It would be like the Supreme Court declaring "Hahaha! No more jury trials!" That would wake up some slaves. It's better to gradually erode freedom. State parasites are reluctant to risk ruining their gravy train.

The Republicans threatened to use the "nuclear option" when Democrats tried to filibuster some of Bush's judicial appointments. A compromise was reached, "You can't filibuster judicial appointments.", but the rules weren't formally changed.

(Note: The right to trial by jury has already been repealed via many Supreme Court rulings. Defense attorneys may not remind juries of their "jury nullification" right/power. Jurors who disagree with the law are removed from the jury pool. The jury selection process is biased against the defendant. Rules regarding evidence are biased against the defendant. If the defense attorney disagrees with the judge's interpretation of the law, he may be barred from making this argument in front of the jury. There is no "right to a speedy trial", with trials dragging on for months/years. Most defendants plea bargain, rather than risking a stiffer sentence if they go to trial and lose; you might get 1/5 or 1/10 less jail time if you plea bargain. It's better to gradually erode the right to a jury trial, rather than eliminate jury trials all at once.)

Democratic Senators liked the filibuster rule when Republicans were a majority. Now, they are hurt by the filibuster rule. However, they know they'll be a minority again soon/eventually. Therefore, they won't change the filibuster rule. Besides, really important/evil laws are "bipartisan".

The Constitution is not a valid contract. All taxation is theft. Discussing the filibuster rule is irrelevant in that context. However, the filibuster rule is an important evil fnord. State parasites are reluctant to change a high-profile rule, lest the slaves wake up. State parasites are reluctant to change the rules of government, especially a high-profile and irrelevant rule like the one on filibusters. The most evil laws are all "bipartisan".

Once you realize "Taxation is theft!", that invalidates all other mainstream discussion of economics and politics.