[OAW]

Contrary to what some believe, the US Constitution does not require a 3/5th majority in the Senate to pass a bill. It does, however, allow for each Congressional body to establish its own rules. In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in US vs. Ballin we find:

The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. [...] The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.

The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single [144 U.S. 1, 6] member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.

So let's put aside the particular political debates of the moment and try to discuss this topic more generally and philosophically. Is the current Senate rule which requires a 60 vote majority for cloture (i.e. to cut off debate on a bill) a good idea? Should the rule be abandoned or modified? Should the rule be amended to return to the days when a Senator(s) was actually required to continuously talk on the Senate floor in order to filibuster? Does the requirement make the US virtually ungovernable at the federal level given the political polarization that currently exists? Should elections matter ... and should the majority party be given the opportunity to govern even if the minority party is determined to be obstructionist ... and then face the voters at the next election?

OAW

[ort888]

It really depends on how changing it will effect my party.

If it will be politically beneficial, I'm all for it and will argue in it's favor until I'm blue in the face. If it's not politically beneficial, I will stand up and dismiss the idea as harmful to the country and everything it stands for.

[turtle777]

^^^ FTW

You can't discuss a change like this in the vacuum.

But in order to have a meaningful debate here, how about prefacing it with

Should the rule be changed in 2030 ?

-t

[The Final Dakar]

I'd be curious what "practical" examples of filibustering are, but at the very least, the option has felt political in recent years (i.e., the Democrats cock-blocking confirmations during Bush's tenure)

[dcmacdaddy]

First vote for abandon.

Granted, the Senate can devise its own rules for how they operate but this rule seems like a copout. If a Senator wants to filibuster a vote, by all means let them. And let them earn it the way Huey Long or Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond did, by getting out there on the floor of the Senate and talking until the are blue in the face. But now, with the 60 vote cloture rule it seems almost guaranteed that very little will ever get done as no party can easily get a 60-vote majority.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

First vote for abandon.

Granted, the Senate can devise its own rules for how they operate but this rule seems like a copout. If a Senator wants to filibuster a vote, by all means let them. And let them earn it the way Huey Long or Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond did, by getting out there on the floor of the Senate and talking until the are blue in the face. But now, with the 60 vote cloture rule it seems almost guaranteed that very little will ever get done as no party can easily get a 60-vote majority.

I'm curious. You voted for abandon but then you advocated what appears to be a modification back to the previous rule?

OAW

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm curious. You voted for abandon but then you advocated what appears to be a modification back to the previous rule?

OAW

I'm continually curious as to why some people write their handles at the end of their posts. Don't they know that their name is already right next to their post? Is it to avoid confusion when the forum hamsters attach the wrong post to the wrong name?

/off topic

I vote to leave it as it is.

[smacintush]

Seems to me that any Senate rules that are agreed upon will have at least two attributes: One, they will not benefit one particular party over the other. Two, they will make legislation harder to pass, rather than easier.

I'm in favor of both.

[OAW]

Well I'm not going to answer based upon partisan advantage. IMO, the rule should be modified. You want to filibuster? Get out there on the floor and keep talking like in the old days. My view is that the Senate has this rule in place to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". And that's a good thing no matter which party is in power. Having said that, the rule as it exists today has gone above and beyond that. It's essentially enabled the minority party to gridlock the Senate so that substantive legislation is next to impossible to achieve. The winning party should be able to govern in my view. Whether that party is Democrat or Republican. If the minority party seriously objects to a particular piece of legislation they should be able to slow the process down via a filibuster. But they shouldn't be able to kill the legislation via a 60 vote cloture requirement. If they can maintain an actual filibuster indefinitely on the floor then so be it. But elections matter. The winning party should be able to govern. Arbitrarily requiring 60 votes to close off debate on a bill effectively results in very little getting done. I can see why the American people are disgusted with Washington now that the political calculus for the minority party is becoming "be obstructionist at every opportunity, and wait for the next election". It seems to me that if the old rule was re-instated it would encourage actual bi-partisanship. If the minority party knew that they couldn't kill legislation with the 60 vote requirement, IMO they would be more likely to work towards compromises that incorporate some of their ideas into a bill.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I'm continually curious as to why some people write their handles at the end of their posts. Don't they know that their name is already right next to their post? Is it to avoid confusion when the forum hamsters attach the wrong post to the wrong name?

Because I'm so proud of i-t

-t

[kido331]

keep the rules the same. filibusters are only to be feared when something is unpopular.

[turtle777]

Btw, one thing to consider when removing the 60 seat filibuster rule:

What's easier to implement is also easier to recant.

-t

[kido331]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If the minority party knew that they couldn't kill legislation with the 60 vote requirement, IMO they would be more likely to work towards compromises that incorporate some of their ideas into a bill.

OAW

why would the majority party even talk to the minority party if they are helpless to stop their agenda?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by kido331 

keep the rules the same. filibusters are only to be feared when something is unpopular.

Everything is unpopular with somebody.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Everything is unpopular with somebody.

But the Dems thought handing out "free" money hand over fist would be popular with everybody

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But the Dems thought handing out "free" money hand over fist would be popular with everybody

Heh, it seemed logical.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Heh, it seemed logical.

... for anyone who still believes in Santa Claus.

Everyone else knows: someone's gotta foot the bill.
Apparently, people know this stuff better than many politicians.

-t

[Orion27]

The only problem I see is the lack of the political theater of the filibuster. The less the government can intrude in my life the better. I like the idea of making law difficult.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kido331 

why would the majority party even talk to the minority party if they are helpless to stop their agenda?

Because more often than not, the majority party is comprised of factions. The Democrats have a liberal, moderate, and conservative wing of the party. The Republicans have a conservative and moderate wing of the party. Just because a party has the majority doesn't necessarily mean they are in lockstep. As evidenced by the failure of the Democrats to pass a final bill on healthcare reform.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Well, the poll seems to be split down ideological lines (as expected). Shame no one asked this back when the Democrats were filibustering when Bush was in office.

[SpaceMonkey]

Realistically, the next best step would be to modify the rule so that it requires 3/5 of those present, not 3/5 of the total Senate. Make it slightly less trivial for those who want to sustain a filibuster.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, the poll seems to be split down ideological lines (as expected). Shame no one asked this back when the Democrats were filibustering when Bush was in office.

Well if we are going to go there, let's take a look at the history of the use of the filibuster:

Barack Obama — unlike the other five presidents my colleagues and I are discussing on this blog — must contend with a worrisome new feature in American politics: the trivialization of the filibuster in the Senate. A simple majority vote no longer suffices to pass major pieces of legislation. Instead, in almost every case, the Senate must muster at least 60 votes (a “supermajority”) to close off debate.

...

Historically, the filibuster was a last-ditch tactic used by an obstructionist minority to prevent passage of a bill by taking advantage of Senate rules that permitted unlimited debate. A measure would simply be “talked to death.” It was widely regarded as misuse of the rules, and was used sparingly. The origin of the word “filibuster” reflected its outlaw status. It was first applied to buccaneers in the West Indies who preyed on Spanish commerce to South America.

In the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. In F.D.R.’s time, the device was employed exclusively by Southerners to block passage of federal anti-lynching legislation. Between 1933 and the coming of the war, it was attempted only twice. Under Eisenhower and J.F.K., the pattern continued. In the eight years of the Eisenhower administration, only two filibusters were mounted. Under Kennedy there were four. The number more than doubled under Lyndon Johnson, but the primary issue continued to be civil rights. Except for exhibitionists, buffoons and white southerners determined to salvage racial segregation, the filibuster was considered off limits.

But with the enactment of major civil rights legislation in the 1960s and ’70s, the issue of equality for African-Americans faded from the Senate’s agenda, and the filibuster shed its racist image. Increasingly senators of all ideological persuasions began to consider the filibuster an acceptable weapon. By the time of the Carter and Reagan administrations, the frequency of filibusters had increased to 20 per year.

It was during the Clinton years that the dam broke. In the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), 32 filibusters were employed to kill a variety of presidential initiatives ranging from campaign finance reform to grazing fees on federal land. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of Senate filibusters varied between 20 and 37 per session, a bipartisan effort.

....

The routine use of the filibuster as a matter of everyday politics has transformed the Senate’s legislative process from majority rule into minority tyranny. Leaving party affiliation aside, it is now possible for the senators representing the 34 million people who live in the 21 least populous states — a little more than 11 percent of the nation’s population — to nullify the wishes of the representatives of the remaining 88 percent of Americans.

Filibusters: The Senate’s Self-Inflicted Wound - 100 Days Blog - NYTimes.com

So again, this isn't a partisan issue IMO. The question is whether the use of the filibuster in the Senate has been trivialized to the point where it has become a hindrance to democracy .... or perhaps even un-American? While it may benefit one party or another in the short-term, my contention is that in the long run this phenomenon that we are increasingly seeing is damaging to the country.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The question is whether the use of the filibuster in the Senate has been trivialized to the point where it has become a hindrance to democracy .... or perhaps even un-American? While it may benefit one party or another in the short-term, my contention is that in the long run this phenomenon that we are increasingly seeing is damaging to the country.

I don't disagree with this take. I, like someone above before me, just think it's impossible for one side to answer the question objectively because they can't see past their own nose.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't disagree with this take. I, like someone above before me, just think it's impossible for one side to answer the question objectively because they can't see past their own nose.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic in thinking that we could actually discuss the issue "abstractly"?

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Speaking as a Canadian, I can only comment that requiring a supermajority to pass legislation is a clear example of how insane the American system is.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Speaking as a Canadian, I can only comment that requiring a supermajority to pass legislation is a clear example of how insane the American system is.

You also don't have a two party system.

-t