Proponents of the measure to enshrine a guarantee of sex equality into the Constitution are using a creative legal theory to try to resurrect the long-stalled amendment.
They can just revert the Filibuster to its original purpose. It was intended to make sure debate on a topic wasn’t cut off prematurely. This notion that a supermajority was needed to get anything done was a recent thing.
You can keep the Filibuster if you want, but make sure it’s solely for the purpose of debating a topic. If a minority wants to Filibuster, they should continue to speak, Jimmy Stewart style. None of this “we don’t have the votes to close debate, so let’s do something else instead” that we have now. If you don’t have the votes to close debate, continue debating!
They can just revert the Filibuster to its original purpose. It was intended to make sure debate on a topic wasn’t cut off prematurely. This notion that a supermajority was needed to get anything done was a recent thing.
You can keep the Filibuster if you want, but make sure it’s solely for the purpose of debating a topic. If a minority wants to Filibuster, they should continue to speak, Jimmy Stewart style. None of this “we don’t have the votes to close debate, so let’s do something else instead” that we have now. If you don’t have the votes to close debate, continue debating!
Yep, you don’t need to eliminate it entirely, just remove the changes that made it too easy.