How does the ongoing contention over the filibuster in the US Senate demonstrate the effects of institutions on American politics?

What will be an ideal response?

The ideal answer should:
a. Discuss how Hamilton's concern about the minority wielding the power to negate the will of the majority has become a widely used tactic in the US Senate.
b. Explain that the filibuster allows Senators to speak as long as they want in the lead-up to a vote on legislation and that the rule was put in place to encourage lively debate about legislation.
c. Identify how the filibuster has become contentious, with some people arguing that it is necessary and others arguing that it is inherently obstructionist.
d. Demonstrate how these rules are now being used to delay indefinitely the passage of a bill by whatever party happens to be in the minority because politicians may not agree with it or want to take a stand on it, as evidenced by the trends in filibusters and cloture attempts from 1919 to 2015.
e.Analyzehow the rules of the Senate have created incentives for political behavior, but how that behavior is dictated not purely by rules but also by changing norms of the institution, noting that this change in norms is also demonstrated by changing use of the presidential veto.