Right - but the founders did not intend for or envision a filibuster that stopped the work of Congress rather than simply slowing it. They didn't envision a filibuster at all. The Senate is slower than the House independent of the filibuster, though.
New Sen. Raphael Warnock pinpoints the key flaw in the filibuster during a powerful first speech In his first-ever floor speech in the U.S. Senate chamber on Wednesday, Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia condemned Republican-led attacks on voting rights in his home state and nationwide as "Jim Crow in new clothes" and implored his party not to allow an archaic rule like the legislative filibuster to stand in the way of efforts to protect and expand the franchise. "No Senate rule should overrule the integrity of our democracy," Warnock said of the 60-vote filibuster, which he characterized as just part of the broader and more "foundational" issue of whether people's voices are heard and reflected in government. "I'm not here to spiral into the procedural argument over whether the filibuster in general has merits or has outlived its usefulness. I'm here to say that this issue is bigger than the filibuster," said the Democratic senator. "This issue, access to voting and preempting politicians' efforts to restrict voting, is so fundamental to our democracy that it is too important to be held hostage by a Senate rule, especially one historically used to restrict expansion of voting rights." "It is a contradiction to say we must protect minority rights in the Senate while refusing to protect minority rights in the society," Warnock continued, alluding to the effective veto the modern filibuster hands to the minority party in the upper chamber. "We must find a way to pass voting rights whether we get rid of the filibuster or not."
To add to this, a lot of the founders were actually against supermajority voting. Supermajority voting was a requirement within the articles of confederation and was cited as one of the key problems with the original articles (because like today, nothing could pass Congress back then thanks to supermajority voting requirements). Back then you needed 9 of 13 states to pass laws (each state only got one vote under the articles) so very little passed. That's why the Constitution specifically requires supermajority voting for very limited areas (such as veto overrides, treaty ratification, etc..) while everything else only requires majority voting. The introduction of modern cloture votes was never envisioned and the framer's explicitly sought to avoid this given past experience with the articles of confederation.
The filibuster is a big impediment but not an absolute stop on the work of Congress. Two reasons why prior till relatively recently has the filibuster not been used as much was first that it wasn't so easy to invoke it as it required actually holding the floor and two that the extreme out of intransigence, mostly from one party, wasn't as prevalent. My own opinion is this is less of a problem of the warning about he danger of the supermajority from Hamilton but the dangers of partisanship from Washington. Keep in mind that even without the filibuster as McConnell notes there are many other tools that Senators can use to stall legislation. I think this is a threat that should be taken seriously and even more so a threat that if the GOP gains the majority they will run roughshod over the minority, since they did it before. My own view is that it shouldn't be done away with but we should go back to actually require a talking filibuster.
As stated before many of the Founders still allowed it to happen. I've seen historians say that Aaron Burr made a mistake with the "move the question" rule and that's possible but if they were aware of the problems with supermajorities they still allowed that. As also noted the tactic of holding the floor goes back to the Roman Senate and as people acutely aware of history including Roman history this might've been a possibility. It should still be clear that given the many anti-democratic features built into the Constitution and from the writings on it that the Founders were very concerned about legislative and other majorities running roughshod over minorities.
While the Burr incident made it possible, the filibuster was never actually used (or even brought up as a possibility) until after all of the founders had died. I think its a stretch to suggest that they envisioned the filibuster (and certainly not the modern form) when they several founders explicitly criticized supermajority voting under the Articles of Confederation. And of course, that incarnation of the filibuster doesn't really resemble today's cloture votes. I'd argue that the very existence of the Senate is the anti-democratic institution that the founders wanted (especially back then when Senators were selected by state legislators). But the filibuster itself wasn't planned for.
When you call 911, that is the local government. In my city it is funded by sales tax, a very small business license tax, property tax, and fees for services like water and sewer. Likewise firefighters. I don't need to be rescued by the national guard either. The worst thing I get are earthquakes and my area is not very vulnerable. So he mentioned one thing that is part of the federal budget, and it is something I don't need. Not really selling me. There are no hurricanes along the Pacific coast, nor have I been out boating on the ocean in the last 25 years. The most I would need is the local Sheriff's riverine unit for boating on the local rivers. Again, local government. Air Traffic Control was privatized in Canada and is operated by a nonprofit. It has resulted in shorter flights, increased safety, modernized equipment, and reduced costs. I would say, do what they did. The airlines oppose because it becomes funded by them (and the passengers) instead of the taxpayers. So everyone pays less (since costs are reduced) and people that don't fly pay even less than those who do, as should be the case for air traffic control costs.
I think there is very few things that the fed gov doesn’t touch. Most locals depends on or uses some federal resources. The interstate is one example. Every communication over the air is another example. Every waterway that crosses state boundaries in another one... If you don’t want to be all dependent on any fed gov, you literally have to get “off the grid”. I know people that have done exactly that for different reason than taxes - it’s because they were very concern (paranoid) about government mass surveillance. 911 has a federal component https://www.911.gov/about_national_911program.html
I am very happily a part society. I live, work, eat, and shop in my community. I have no interest in the federal government involving itself in local affairs or creating nationwide laws far outside the mandate granted it by the Constitution, nor in paying a quarter of my salary for a bloated and ever expanding federal government to do things it was never empowered to do.
I agree the Founders didn't want most votes to require a supermajority and yes the current filibuster doesn't resemble what it was and I blame that on doing away with the talking filibuster. As stated though the idea of holding the floor to stall or stop legislation had been known for a long time by the time of the Founders. As learned men of their time they were aware of this tactic. The Founders very much distrusted direct democracy and feared that it would lead to what they were seeing was happening in France at the time. They also understood that there were many competing interests in the country and likely always would be so they wanted ways to divide and distribute power while also forcing debate that would protect the interests of minority viewpoints.
Except I presume you buy products and goods that shipped from overseas, I presume also that your local economy benefits from tourism and fishing in the Pacific. I'll look into the Canadian air traffic control situation but if it is run by a nonprofit I'm guessing it's heavily regulated by the Canadian government. Also I'm presuming that with the amount of international flights coming into and out of Canada the Canadian national government plays a role just to deal with those flights.
A talking filibuster just slows legislation by hours, it doesn't kill it. It would be less if it was limited to the issues at hand rather than wasting Senate time on Green Eggs and Ham.
Um, actually, I only by locally sourced products. No, of course that isn't true, everyone buys stuff shipped internationally. The Constitution also allows for a Navy which fought in our first foreign war against Tripoli pirates, so I have no issue with the US government having a Navy and using it for anti-piracy operations. My local economy doesn't really benefit from tourism or fishing because I live inland and no one in their right mind would come to Stockton for tourism. I was surprised myself, not only that a major nation has privatized ATC but that it was Canada, famous for public health care (the UK did as well, but did it for profit and the results were, mmmm mixed, coincidentally also has well known public health care).
Except piracy isn't the only problem facing shipping and transport across waters. While there are few cyclonic storms on the US Pacific coast there are storms and the Coast Guard along the US West Coast is still active in rescues and providing for the safety of shipping. I took a look at NAV Canada and while it is privatized part of it's board is appointed by the Canadian government. It's funding comes from aviation customers.
