Ending the U.S. Senate's Filibuster Rule

In the last six years, the Senate has had 380 filibusters.

Illustration by Alan Dye (The New York Times).

(SAN FRANCISCO) - There is increasing sentiment in the U.S. Senate to end or reform the filibuster. Supposedly, all seven of the newly elected senators and newly elected independent Angus King of Maine have pledged support for changing the Senate's filibuster rule. Presently, as we have seen in the last sessions of Congress, a 41-vote minority of Republican senators has effectively bottled up or killed legislation.

A U.S. Senate filibuster usually refers to any dilatory or obstructive tactics used to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate).  Senate Rule XXII (www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm) permits a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.  Since 1917, there have been 1,372 cloture motions filed, 989 votes on cloture, and 440 cloture invoked. In recent years, however, the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed.

In the last six years, the Senate has had 380 filibusters. From the moment Obama entered office, right-wing conservatives' goal was to make Obama a one-term president. As Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell put it, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." The Republicans used the filibuster or threat of filibuster to further this obstructionist strategy.

The Democrats have not been adverse to using the filibuster.  They used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by President George W. Bush In the Republican-controlled 108th Congress, ten Bush judicial nominees had been filibustered by the minority Democrats. As a result of these ten filibusters, Senate Republicans began to threaten to change the existing Senate rules by using what Senator Trent Lott "nuclear option" or sometimes called the "Constitutional option." This change in rules would eliminate the use of the filibuster to prevent judicial confirmation votes. As a compromise, the so called Gang of 14 signed an agreement, pertaining to the 109th Congress only, whereby the seven Senate Democrats would no longer vote along with their party on filibustering judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances," as defined by each individual senator), and in turn the seven Senate Republicans would break with the Republican leadership on voting for the "nuclear option." 

Previously, a filibuster meant non-stop speeches made famous by Jimmy Stewart in the 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Mr_Smith_Comes_To_Washington.htm), and infamously by Senator Strom Thurmond's 1959 marathon oration against the civil rights bill.  Thurmond holds the Senate's filibuster record of 24 hours and 18 minutes.

Emmet J. Bondurant in his article, "The Senate Filibuster:  The Politics of Obstruction" (www.harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Bondurant_Article.pdf), persuasively argues that:  "The notion that the Framers of the Constitution intended to allow a minority in the U.S. Senate to exercise veto power over legislation and presidential appointments is not only profoundly undemocratic, it is also a myth."   In this regard, Common Cause filed a lawsuit on May 16, 2012 asking the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. to declare that "the Senate’s filibuster rule is unconstitutional and violates the core American principle of majority rule."  (www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=11712195

In the last session of Congress in early 2011, efforts to reform the filibuster fell seven votes short of passage. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who opposed and voted against the idea at the start of the last Congress has recanted and thrown his weight behind the effort.

However, changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to end debate.

Despite this, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the nuclear or constitutional option mentioned above. The Senate Democrats could override the current filibuster rules by a simple majority vote and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. The new interpretation would become effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate has the right to choose the rules governing its procedure by majority vote, including ending filibuster altogether or ending a filibuster (cloture) by a majority vote.

The Senate's authority and step-by-step guide to change the filibuster rule can be found in "The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures:  A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster" by Martin B. Gold and Dimple Gupta (faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/353/353Assignments/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf)

Clearly, the time has come to change the present Senate filibuster rule by invoking the nuclear option or constitutional option.  The filibuster has become a tool of obstruction, replacing majority rule by the tyranny of the minority.  

_______________________________________

Salem-News.com writer Ralph E. Stone was born in Massachusetts. He is a graduate of both Middlebury College and Suffolk Law School. We are very fortunate to have this writer's talents in this troubling world; Ralph has an eye for detail that others miss. As is the case with many Salem-News.com writers, Ralph is an American Veteran who served in war. Ralph served his nation after college as a U.S. Army officer during the Vietnam war. After Vietnam, he went on to have a career with the Federal Trade Commission as an Attorney specializing in Consumer and Antitrust Law. Over the years, Ralph has traveled extensively with his wife Judi, taking in data from all over the world, which today adds to his collective knowledge about extremely important subjects like the economy and taxation. You can send Ralph an email at this address stonere@earthlink.net

---

Politics | Hollywood | California | Most Commented on

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

---

Anonymous November 30, 2012 2:17 pm (Pacific time)

It was not too long ago when the Republicans had a majority and were talking about doing the same thing, and democrats started a campaign to stop that possibility. They were screaming how unconstitutional and unfair to Americans. Please note that the 2014 elections are going to be here quickly...the 2010 elections and the future 2014 elections may also switch things pretty quickly. The Founders and past senators created a system of checks and balances for some darn good reasons. Reid is the type of Senator whose record clearly demonstrates that he takes orders from the Whitehouse. No budget for four years, now why is that? Maybe the senate democrats would also like to pass a"wealth tax?" Senate democras are pretty wealthy compared to the Repblicans in the senate, so doubt they want to give up anything, nor have Obamacare as their medical program. Hypocrits, and very very dangerous to America.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.

Articles for November 29, 2012 | Articles for November 30, 2012 | Articles for December 1, 2012