Killing the Filibuster and Letting the Majority Rule in the Senate
One of the many reasons for the logjam in Congress in the
past years has been that while a simple majority is all that is necessary to
pass a bill in the House of Representatives, in the Senate it takes 60 votes to
do so. Why? Because the Senate allows for a parliamentary
procedure called a “filibuster” in which the Senators who oppose a bill may
keep debating it, and debating it, and debating it, unless cut off by a “cloture”
vote, which takes the support of 60 senators.
Thus, even though the Democrats have a majority of 53 senators (plus two
independents who usually vote with them), they cannot pass a bill without the
support of some of the 45 Republican senators supporting a cloture vote.
Aaron Burr |
Under Robert’s Rules of Order (used by most deliberative
bodies) debate is closed by the passage of a “Motion To Call the Question,”
which is not debatable (see RRO section 37).
In the U.S. House of Representatives such a motion passes on a mere
majority vote. This originally was the
rule in the Senate but in 1806 Aaron Burr called for a reform of procedural
rules and recommended that this particular motion be eliminated as
unnecessary. It is widely agreed that he
didn’t understand what this would mean, but when the rules were revised that
same year they did eliminate any procedure for ending debate. All that is left is a motion to end debate,
which would require a majority vote, but, alas, such a motion itself could be
subjected to a filibuster.
Although the filibuster has been possible in the Senate
since 1806, it was rarely employed until recently. Senator Jeff Merkley (D. Ore.) uses this
statistic to show how the use of the filibuster has exploded in the past few
years: Lyndon Johnson in his six years as Majority Leader of the Senate faced one filibuster, while Harry Reid, the
current Majority Leader, in his six years has had to deal with 391.
This is outrageous. The Constitution cites only five requirements
for Senate supermajorities, including impeachment convictions of presidents,
but none of those apply to cutting off debate.
Indeed the drafters of the Constitution considered making
supermajorities a requirement for many forms of legislation but in the end went
with the basic premise that majority rules.
The stupidity of the filibuster’s possible use means that the Senate is most
often at a standstill.
Late this year the
Democrats finally took action and managed to pass a rule change that forbade
the use of the filibuster in matters having to do with Presidential
appointments (other than those to the United States Supreme Court). This rule change was deemed the “nuclear
option” because it bombed away some of the protection the filibuster has
traditionally given to the minority party, and the Republicans were duly
outraged at being deprived of this valuable delaying tactic.
Why not go all the
way and simply abolish the filibuster by reinstating the motion to cut off
debate (with a majority vote all that’s needed to prevail)? Well, the answer is that the Democrats are
now in control of the Senate, but that won’t last forever. When they are next in the minority they’ll be
every bit as fond of the filibuster as the current crop of Republicans.
But this is pusillanimous—the
good of the country requires that Congress function as smoothly as possible,
and obstructions as large as the filibuster are relics of the past that we should
no longer tolerate. With Congress’s
approval rating at an all time low any step to make the legislative process
speedier and more efficient should be taken.
Dump the filibuster
completely. Give us back majority rule
in both houses of Congress.
------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
“Benjamin Franklin Riding Shotgun,” May 29, 2010
“How To Make Ethical Decisions,” December 12, 2010
“Ohio To Put Guns in Baby
Strollers,” June 17, 2012
“Obamacare, John Roberts,
and the Supreme Court,” July 3, 2012
“I Hate Meetings,” October 31, 2011
“A Guide to the Best of My Blog,” April 29, 2013
Comments
Post a Comment