Home > History Education > Proof: Democrats Silencing the Minority Since 1917

Proof: Democrats Silencing the Minority Since 1917

November 28th, 2013 Leave a comment Go to comments
Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Censorship in the U.S. Senate. Image credit: theoaklandjournal.com.

Censorship in the U.S. Senate. Image credit: theoaklandjournal.com.

Proof: Democrats Silencing the Minority Since 1917

original article written by Net Advisor

WASHINGTON DC. The Obama Administration needed a series of distractions from its failed and costly launch of ObamaCare. The first distraction came when Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) decided without a vote or discussion in the U.S. Senate, to change the Senate rules to make it easier to silence the Senate minority (Republicans).

Then the Administration needed a distraction from the other distraction, which came to a fantasyland agreement on Iran’s nuclear ambition. A new full report on Iran will follow soon. Here we cover the Administration’s silencing the minority.

[1] What is a Fillibuster?

A filibuster is an “Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.”

— Source: United States Senate (accessed 11-28-2013)

[2] The U.S. Senate Filibuster Attacked & Weakened Three Times

The filibuster was permitted in the U.S. Senate in 1806. The ability to filibuster in the Senate has been attacked three times in U.S. history, each time weakening it, giving the majority party greater control of the Senate with fewer votes in the Senate.

Who came up with the idea to allow a filibuster, where the minority in the Senate could still be heard and make an argument for their position? The idea was approved by a majority consensus by the Democrat-Republican Party under the 9th Congress from 1805-1807.

The Democratic-Republican Party was first established in 1791 by two of our Constitutional Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. That party broke off into a two-party system, the Democratic Party and what eventually some have argued developed into the modern Republican Party.

Beginning in 1917 with the cloture rule, it took 2/3rds (or 66 votes) of the U.S. Senate, instead of 100% (or 100 votes) to end a filibuster. The second attack on the filibuster occurred in 1975 which changed the rule to allow just 3/5ths (or 60 votes) of a Senate vote to end a filibuster. Now, in November 2013, the third attack on the filibuster weakens it even more to now allow a simple majority (51 votes) to end a filibuster.

Thus, in the last 96 years, the Senate majority has changed the rules three times to be able to silence the voice of up to 49 out of 100 Senate votes during a filibuster.

[3] Democrats Silencing the Minority Since 1917

As discussed above, the Senate majority has changed the filibuster rules three times in 1917, 1975 and now in 2013. In case anyone is wondering who keeps changing the Senate rules in order to silence the minority, here is the answer.

  • In 1917, under the 65th Congress, the U.S. Senate was controlled by Democrats.
  • In 1975, under the 94th Congress, the U.S. Senate was controlled by Democrats.
  • In 2013, under the 113th Congress, the U.S. Senate was controlled by Democrats.

Thus the Progressive Democrats have been consistent – at working to silence the minority party when things don’t go their way.

[4] Socialists Did it Again

Young Democrats, many who arguably support and act like far-left Socialists, encouraged Senator Reid to make sure that anyone who opposes the radical left does not have a voice heard in government.

Radicals in the U.S. government are not new. For example, the Democrat party also controlled the U.S. House of Representatives in 1917 with support of Progressives and a Socialist Party Rep., Meyer London. After the 1917 cloture rule, the Democrat majority was voted out of office in both the House and Senate during the 66th Congress to until the 72nd Congress, giving Republicans control of both houses from 1919 until 1931.

[5] Concern: Political Power Grab

In the current argument, Republicans cite concern that President Obama is putting under-qualified people in power positions and trying to stack the second biggest court in the nation, the Washington DC District Court. By changing the Senate rules by breaking a filibuster with a simple minority, makes it easier for President Obama to fill the district court and other appointments with more Progressives.

Senator Reid threatened this ‘anti-filibuster’ move last July 2013 on NBC’s Meet the Press.

In order to get his current agenda in place, President Barack Obama flip-flopped on his 2005 position when he was the Junior Senator from Illinois. Then Senator Obama said the minority should have their voice heard in government.

“…If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice; I fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn’t serve anyone’s best interest. And it certainly isn’t what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind…”

— Senator Barack Obama said on U.S. Senate Floor in 2005

[6] Democrats Double Standard?

In 2005, Democrats were the minority party in the U.S. Senate under the 109th Congress. Then Senator Obama wanted the Democrats voice heard when they were the minority in government.

While the Democrats are still in the Senate majority in 2013, and the fact that 53% of the American public does not see President Obama as honest and trustworthy, the Democrats no longer want a (Republican) minority to have their voice heard (CNN/ORC Poll Nov 18-20, 2013 PDF, P2). The anti-filibuster move was a desperate attempt to hold on to whatever power they have left since the ObamaCare debacle.

[7] Careful for What you Wish For

Fifty-four Democrats including two Independents voted for the filibuster rule change. For new historians, there are 100 members in the U.S. Senate, two from each of the fifty U.S. states.

Democrats Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), and Carl Levin (Michigan) all were against Sen. Reid’s rule change. These three Democrats have been around long enough to know that no one party maintains a super majority forever; eventually there is push-back. When that time comes when Republicans control the Senate again, will the Democrats scream and whine about a Republican simple majority overriding situations that the Democrats don’t like? You bet they will, and they can all blame (or thank) Harry Reid for it.


Photo Credits: Image credit: theoaklandjournal.com. Video Edit by: Black and Right.
original article content, Copyright © 2013 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.


Related posts:

Categories: History Education
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.