[Tallguy]

There is nothing sacred about a rule that exists only on the senate rulebook and not in the constitution.It's not like it came down from the mount on stone tablets. It's a senate rule that has outlived it's usefulness.

The senate no longer serves it's original constitution purpose anyway -- which was to represent the interests of the states. So you have to ask what purpose the fillibuster serves except to make today's version of the senate a kind of super-House-of-Representatives. I'd be for keeping the filibuster if we went back to individual senators being elected by their respective state houses, but since we're not headed in that direction, get rid of the rule.

[xzins]

I flat out agree with you about putting senators back under their state legislatures.