I think my solution is both fair, good for governance, and therefore good for the country.

In order to sustain a filibuster you must:

1. Have at least 35 votes. This means to break a filibuster you need 65 votes.

2. You have 30 days to draft and propose opposing legislation. (Effectively, you're saying: "This bill is so bad it can't be fixed with amendments. Look at this bill instead!")

3. If those supporting the filibuster fail to have opposing legislation by the end of the 30 days, they may request additional time, but to get this requires a majority vote (51 votes) on the Senate floor. A failure to get 51 votes to sustain a filibuster ends the filibuster, allowing a majority vote to pass the originally proposed legislation.

4. If opposing legislation is drafted and put forward before the end of the 30 days, it may be considered by the Senate only if it receives a majority vote (51 votes). A failure to obtain the majority vote ends the filibuster and kills the opposing legislation.

Now, what does this accomplish?

- It ends the "Just Say No" bloc in the Senate. It requires them to actually propose alternative ideas of their own, which still require a majority vote to pass. Thus, if their ideas are good they can move forward, if not they die.

- It preserves majority rule. While it slows down the process, it's designed to create debate (in fact it -demands- debate), not slow it down for the sake of slowing it down.

- If a majority of Senators like the way the opposing legislation is shaping up, they can choose to sustain the filibuster if it takes longer than 30 days to draft opposing legislation. This is a good thing because in order to get the majority vote it FORCES the minority party to work with members of the majority party. It forces compromise and has everyone working toward a solution to the problem, rather than simply erecting a roadblock.

- It leads to better governance, because it has people debating issues and ideas, not simply carpet bombing the opposition in an attempt to score cheap political points.

- It's fair, because it allows the opposition a chance to voice their dissent (if nothing else), but still demands that they gain the support of the majority of the Senate.

- By putting a time limit and requirements on what is needed to sustain a filibuster it ensures that the threat of a filibuster alone is not enough to require a super majority for everything. If the Senate has a clear and solid majority in their camp, it makes the filibuster useless aside from slowing down the process (for one month), and allows them to just shrug and let them filibuster.

- It's good for the country, because it actually allows the Senate to participate in government without grinding to a halt.

- It ends things like the Louisiana Purchase and the Ben Nelson buy off. It doesn't allow a small handful of Senators (or even just one) to hold legislation hostage if the majority support it.