it happened in 1805 after aaron burr suggested a rules change. >> aaron burr as vice president in the early 1800s was going over the rules in the senate and made a critical mistake. he thought you don't really need a way to stop a debate, do we. there is just a few of us. we will debate until we are done, until everyone had their say. how slow could the senate really be. >> nobody knew it at the time, it would be three more decades before the first filibuster was mounted but that was the moment the senate created the filibuster. >> trevor: that's right, the filibuster isn't in the constitution. it is just a rawl that was made up by that guy who shot lynn manuel-miranda. and it didn't seen start out as a way to block legislation, it was a way for the senate to keep debates open, not to debate for so long that nobody could ever actually vote on a bill. so it is original purpose is completely different from what people decided to use it for later on t is insane. sort of like how facebook was invented as a way to see which of your classmates to-- and later for a way to organize a lynch mo

by examining both the public and private papers of key figures such as thomas jefferson, aaron burr and alexander hamilton professor freeman reveals the profoundly unstable political world grounded on the cone of code of honor her work offers deep insight into the anxieties and political realities of leaders struggling to define themselves and their role in the new nation. professor freeman's most recent book the field of blood violence and congress and the road to civil war focuses on physically violent clashes in the house and senate chambers and how they shaped and savaged the nation. the book demonstrates how these conflicts elicited and raised tensions between the north and south ultimately igniting in the civil war field of blood won the national public radio book of the year award in 2018. professor freeman has long been committed to public history. she is co-host of the popular american history podcast backstory and is a frequent public speaker commentator and historical consultant whose work has appeared in the new york times the washington post and atlantic magazine. she is a

in the house deliberations on the election between jefferson and aaron burr was any consideration given to the -- was that a part of the negotiations about who you should vote for? was burr trying to play that card? >> to my knowledge, no. it's hard to believe in retrospect. slavery was a dominant issue on the national scene even by 1800. it's really not until after the louisiana purchase come after the question of what could happen in the territory comes in. the missouri crisis is the first time that it bursts onto the national scene in a serious way. it's always in the background at the bait but by 1800 it is not a dominant political issue. >> not that people would use it as chips. here's a bold question. i'm going to the civil war now? >> i'm hopeful that we won't. i don't predict the future but i'm crossing my fingers. >> the stories will never talk about the future. >> and i'm a political theorist and i still don't talk about the future. >> you have to sign onto that when you get the job at the university. june questions, what do we know about the integral sentiment of washington w

in the evening, the vp of the united states, aaron burr, joined us and gave a sentiment which should it become operative principle, would prove fatal to him and his party. he requested it might not be published however and we have no wish to do it. i had to throw in leslie odum there as burr from the hamilton play. jen, that's for you, really. the last sunday of the sermon is the last sunday sermon given in congress. the house of representatives, some of the audience might know, is actually holding religious services in the house chamber in the capitol building because it's the largest single chamber in the young city. so the last sunday sermon of that session that i've been focusing on was in may of 1802, a few months later. we know about it through cutler's journal where he says he attended the hall mr. parkinson preached. he had the same kind of reputation in federalist minds as that john leland did, the cheese monger who preached a few months earlier. our chaplain who is an illiterate man preaches in the same style as leland. they disgrace the cause of religion and bring it into

by the way, the filibuster came about as a total accident, as the professor knows, with aaron burr just saying, you know, the rules are sloppy, you don't need this rule. oh, my god, what a mess. >> i'm glad you brought that up. the one question is how it came about. we should do that again. i appreciate you both making good use of our time this evening. former california senator barbara boxer and professor sarah binder with the brookings institution, appreciate it. >>> still to come, the space between us and the ones we love, all over the media, we choose to consume. we will talk about tucker carlson, the backlash against him and what it means for all of us. >>> and the white house is refusing to call the situation at the u.s./mexico border a crisis. new immigration legislation could clear the way for millions of people. >>> but first, richard lui is here with the headlines. >> good saturday to you. some stories that we're watching for you. in london, thousands demonstrated against the covid-19 lockdown. dozens were arrested. england has been in lockdown since january. nonessential busi

they involve aaron burr, the guy who shot hamilton, the actual use of the filibuster as it's developed has been almost more than anything a tool of the white supremacist south and a cudgel to block civil rights starting with one of the great villains of american history, john c. calhoun who first realized it could be used to preserve the power of the slave states. 1922 the filibuster was used to kill an anti-lynching bill that would combat the ku klux klan. strom thurmond filibustered for 24 hours straight to in 1967 and a 60-day filibuster almost killed the civil rights bill of 1964. of course back then they had to actually do the talking. actual historians, people who do study this say the filibuster has been used to deny black rights for more than a century, not exclusively. it's been used for other stuff, but that has been a central theme here, and now republicans are willing to use to to block a bill that would prevent the gop from suppressing votes, specifically african american votes and would have the effect of making our elections more fair. by the way, for everyone, like, you

by the way, the filibuster came about as a total accident, as the professor knows, with aaron burr saying, you know, the rules are slack. you don't need this rule. oh, what a mess. >> i'm glad you brought that up. that's the one question, how did it happen? we should repost that again. i appreciate you making good use of our time this evening. former california senator barbara boxer and professor sarah binder with the brookings institution. thank you. >> still to come, the space between us and the ones we love all over the media we choose to consume. we'll talk about tucker carlson, the back lash against him and what it means for all of us. and the white house is refusing to call what's happening at the border, a crisis. the legislation that could clear the way for millions of people. >> a good saturday to you. some stories that we're watching for you. in london thousands demonstrated against the covid-19 lockdown. protesters scuffled with police and dozens were arrested. england has been in lockdown since january. nonessential businesses are closed and people are advised to stay home. >>

not just for the olden days when alexander hamilton through away his shot against aaron burr.t suggested that bush 43 and zaum hussein settle differences in a dual. refereed by the u.n. to which the white house responded. >> tell the can be no serious response to to an irresponsible statement like that. >> sometimes the challenge isn't to a war of words. it's to a war on drugs. >> i said what the hell is he taking? and we'd like to ask him. and i said that we want a drug test. we want a drug test. we'll both take it. >> biden said no comments. but his campaign couldn't resist the setup saying, if the president thinks his best case is made in urine. we expect nothing less from donald trump who pissed away the lives of 200,000 americans when he didn't plan to stop covid-19. it stands to wonder which is the original why woe talk about why vladimir putin who loves to embrace his strongman image challenged president biden in the first place. almost always as you can see the challengers comes from a position of weakness. ahead as europe faces a third coronavirus wave, moments ago, d

just think, if hamilton and aaron burr had 9 irons.ow the trump-graham buddy-cop relationship came to be is less of a question of why it continues. graham seemed to have an introspective moment after the former-president's supporter stormed the capitol, hours after the insurrection was put down, senators returned to business and graham spoke on the senate floor and said this. >> trump and i. we've had a hell of a journey. i hate it being this way. oh, my god, i hate it. from my point of view, he's been a consequential president. but today, first thing you'll see. all i can say is count me out. enough is enough. >> and indeed, for graham, enough was enough, until it wasn't. apparently, wasn't enough for lindsey graham to vote to impeach donald trump. and it's not enough for lindsey graham to envision a future for the republican party, without the former president, either. graham, who recently sat down with "axios," had this to say. >> there is something about trump. there's a dark side, and there's some magic there. and what i'm trying

it is a time-honored tradition in the senate going back to aaron burr serving as vice president that people can speak on an unlimited fashion on the floor. there's nothing to stop them, until there came a cloture vote which didn't appear until the earlier 20th century. bfers that a senator -- before that that a senator could hold the floor indefinitely to a crawl or stop if necessary. the filibuster allowed them to continue that, but then came the cloture motion which stopped the filibuster. it initially took two-thirds vote, 67. eventually 60 votes. but that's what it boils down to. if you want to get anything done on the floor, you don't want one senator to stand up and say i refuse to accept the vote, then you have to have 60 votes. so in a majority senate, 51 would clearly be sufficient. under a filibuster, 60 is required. there are 50 democrats, 50 republicans. vice president kamala harris can be the tie-breaking vote, the 51st vote. so the republicans, by applying the filibuster rule, could require 60 votes, which of course the democrats by themselves, even with the vice presid

the change came at the suggestion of vice president aaron burr who was fresh off of his trial for killing alexander hamilton. and who was later tried for treason. burr, presiding over the senate one day, skimmed the rule book and suggested the previous question rule be dropped. he reasoned we hardly ever use that rule, so why is it necessary? thus, the filibuster was born. not as a sacred constitutional principle, but an offhanded clerical suggestion. there were few filibusters before the civil war. after the war, filibusters remained rare, used exclusively to deny african americans their basic constitutional rights. the first major changes started in 1917. the senate adopted what's known as rule 22, the cloture rule, allowing the senate to end debate with two-thirds majority vote. fast forward to the 1970's, two more changes in the filibuster. first, senators changed the rule to allow more than one bill or matter to be pending on the senate floor at a time. before this, the filibuster really literally brought the senate to a halt. the creation of this two-track system allowed the senate

rather the emergence was made possible in 1806 when the senate , at the advice of aaron burr removedrom its rules a provision formally known as the previous question motion allowing simple majority to force a vote on the underlying question being debated . host: john, arlington, virginia, good morning. caller: this doesn't sound very republican, i'm a republican but i believe in responsible government. some of our friends overseas, britain, canada, australia, new zealand, stuff like that, traditional democratic societies, they live with responsible government. you vote for somebody because you support them and they govern. if they don't do well, the other side votes, the other side, you go to an election on the other end and they do what they want and you have the courts's sort it out to make sure that people don't go insane and screw up real constitutional rights. the founding fathers did not actually envisage party government. they believed, it was kind of shortsighted, that we would not have political parties. that disappeared in about three or four years. the filibuster was not a