Time to End the Filibuster By Making It Real
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
U.S. News and World Report
March 2, 2009
Is it time to eliminate the filibuster? Definitely not. But David RePass, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Connecticut, has an interesting suggestion in today's New York Times along those lines but distinctly short of it.
RePass bemoans the fact that the filibuster has given the senate's minority party a functional veto over legislation in that chamber by requiring at least 60 votes to pass something. But, he points out, real filibusters never actually happen these days: the modern "filibuster" is more threat than action.
Which is where RePass' solution comes in:
... fixing the problem would not require any change in Senate rules. The phantom filibuster could be done away with overnight by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. All he needs to do is call the minority's bluff by bringing a challenged measure to the floor and letting the debate begin.
In other words, don't get rid of the filibuster. Instead make it real: Force Republicans to actually get up and tie up Senate business and explain why they're doing it. If the GOP (or the Democrats, in time, when they are back in the minority), want to filibuster they should be able to—but they should have to actually do it.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/03/02/-time-to-end-the-filibuster-by-making-it-real.html---------------------------------------
Op-Ed Contributor
Make My Filibuster
By DAVID E. RePASS
David E. RePass is an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Connecticut.
New York Times
March 1, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA has decided to spend his political capital now, pushing through an ambitious agenda of health care, education and energy reform. If the Democrats in the Senate want to help him accomplish his goals, they should work to eliminate one of the greatest threats facing effective governance — the phantom filibuster.
Most Americans think of the filibuster (if they think of it at all) through the lens of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” — a minority in the Senate deeply disagrees with a measure, takes to the floor and argues passionately round the clock to prevent it from passing. These filibusters are relatively rare because they take so much time and effort.
In recent years, however, the Senate has become so averse to the filibuster that if fewer than 60 senators support a controversial measure, it usually won’t come up for discussion at all. The mere threat of a filibuster has become a filibuster, a phantom filibuster. Instead of needing a sufficient number of dedicated senators to hold the floor for many days and nights, all it takes to block movement on a bill is for 41 senators to raise their little fingers in opposition.
The phantom filibuster is clearly unconstitutional. The founders required a supermajority in only five situations: veto overrides and votes on treaties, constitutional amendments, convictions of impeached officials and expulsions of members of the House or Senate. The Constitution certainly does not call for a supermajority before debate on any controversial measure can begin.
And fixing the problem would not require any change in Senate rules. The phantom filibuster could be done away with overnight by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. All he needs to do is call the minority’s bluff by bringing a challenged measure to the floor and letting the debate begin.
Some argue that this procedure would mire the Senate in one filibuster after another. But avoiding delay by not bringing measures to the floor makes no sense. For fear of not getting much done, almost nothing is done at all. And what does get done is so compromised and toothless to make it filibuster-proof that it fails to solve problems.
It also happens to make a great deal of political sense for the Democrats to force the Republicans to take the Senate floor and show voters that they oppose Mr. Obama’s initiatives. If the Republicans want to publicly block a popular president who is trying to resolve major problems, let them do it. And if the Republicans feel that the basic principles they believe in are worth standing up for, let them exercise their minority rights with an actual filibuster.
Please read the complete article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02RePass.html?_r=2&ref=opinion-----------------------------------------
New York Times
To the Editor:
Mr. RePass has made clear the source of my misgivings about the requirement of a 60-vote majority for passage of any Senate bill: the mere threat of a filibuster by a 41-vote minority allows it to override majority rule in relative anonymity.
A Senate paralyzed by endless filibusters isn’t a pleasant thought, but avoiding filibusters by insisting on a 60-vote majority for everything is senatorial cowardice. It perverts the whole purpose of the filibuster and renders the Senate spineless in the face of controversy.
Allowing filibusters would at least provide an effective focus for public wrath. With almost two-thirds of the public approving of the job President Obama is doing, surely the timing is optimal for doing away with the 60-vote majority requirement.
The president has clearly demonstrated his willingness to work with Republicans at all levels, which is necessary to keep the legislative wheels turning effectively in a filibuster-enabled Senate. Let’s get on with it.
Walter Wilde
Missoula, Mont., March 2, 2009
New York Times
To the Editor:
David E. RePass’s article to get rid of the “phantom filibuster” is right on target. Enough of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, bringing up diluted proposed legislation or not having it heard at all unless there are 61 senators in favor of it. It is time for the Democratic majority we voted for to have its proposals fully considered.
If the Senate Republicans want to fight them, let them go ahead and make their filibusters, for one day, one week or whatever, so that it will be out in the open and we can all see what is going on and reward them when the time comes. If we are pleased, we will increase their numbers; if we disagree, we will boot more of them out.
Irene M. Piccone
Northville, Mich., March 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/lweb08filibuster.html--------------------------------------
What Is The "Nuclear Option"?
In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005
The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
