TPMDC
Durbin Backs Filibuster Reform
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Share
Send to a friend!
The Senate's second highest ranking Democrat lent his support today to a growing effort, spearheaded by more junior members, to eliminate or diminish the power of the minority to enforce a 60 vote requirement on Senate business.
"I think there is a high level of frustration and a feeling that we missed many opportunities," Durbin told reporters this afternoon, in response to a question from TPMDC. "And also a lot of us have been completely worn down by a requirement of 60 votes on everything. This was rare when I got here 14 years ago and now it is rare otherwise".
Durbin used as an example one of his own initiatives, which was nearly killed by the supermajority requirement.
"Here we were with amendments on Wall Street reform. 28 amendments by majority vote. I want to offer an amendment on credit card fees, and they say, 'Oh that'll be 60.' Well where did that come from?" Durbin said.
Durbin's amendment ultimately passed, but, he said, "the 60 was designed for me to lose. I won instead."
"But the point is, if you can just out of the blue say, 'Uh that's not a majority, that's 60,' and not have any basis other than if you don't we'll filibuster, it really reaches the point where this place isn't on the square. And I think it should be."
With Republicans breaking their own filibuster records, both leading and rank-and-file Democrats have been studying various ways to end abuse of the rules by the minority. One of the leading proposals on the table is the so-called "Constitutional option." The Constitution grants both chambers the power to write their own rules. The Senate, as a continuing body, usually leaves the rules untouched, and changes require 67 votes. But a growing chorus of senators and experts now say the rule governing filibusters is unconstitutional insofar as it's used to prevent the Senate from adopting new rules. At the beginning of the next Congress, the Vice President ruled on day one of the 112th Congress that the Senate could write new rules, and Republicans object, Democrats can table that objection with 51 votes. If they do, they can rewrite the filibuster rule in myriad ways, either to dampen GOP obstruction, or eliminate it altogether.
Already, many of the usual suspects on the Democratic side of the aisle are raising objections to the Constitutional option, but if leadership and the White House are sufficiently frustrated, they could force the issue.
"It's been discussed," Durbin said. "Nobody's done that with the current Senate rules, so it would be a departure. I'm not going to rule it out or in. It will be a subject of conversation as we organize for the next Congress.... I would really want to take it to the caucus."
Comments (77) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
crazycarnypoptart
July 28, 2010 6:17 PM
how about as an alternative they make it where the filibuster could be used only like 3 times in any session. I think the filibuster is needed but that its being abused.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PartTimeRoadie
July 28, 2010 6:51 PM in reply to crazycarnypoptart
All they really need to do is force the filibuster party(s) to actually debate endlessly. That would force them to actually line up all their members to go round the clock. It would ensure that it would be reserved only for the most serious cases.
Also... Get rid of the ability to Filibuster to START debate. End debate and vote? Ok... But to say we can't even discuss something is as anti-democratic (with a small D) as it gets.
All that said, I think they should up it to like 45 votes to maintain (rather than 55 to break (in this example)). That would prevent them from abusing the expected or recent deaths of Senators, as we have seen recently.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 28, 2010 7:21 PM in reply to PartTimeRoadie
For the 10000th time. You can't force them to debate endlessly. That's folklore. They don't have to stand. They don't have to talk. They don't have to read from the dictionary.
All they have to do to filibuster is have one member sit on the floor at a time and object if someone tries to bring a vote. It could go on for months.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Early Out
July 28, 2010 7:25 PM in reply to FreeRider
And that's precisely what's wrong with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 28, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to Early Out
I do believe we should at least put the burden on the minority to keep 40 Senators available at all times to stop the vote if they can, instead of the current burden on the majority to come up with 60 votes to override. So if the minority wants to thwart the majority, they can only do so with constant viligence and absolute unity. One Senator nips out to visit a brothel or to tap his shoe in a public restroom, and the Minority loses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 8:09 PM in reply to Early Out
So you were all in favor of the idea that the GOP should have only had a 50 vote threshold to end debate on say... privatize Social Security a while back?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
July 28, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
I would have been opposed to ending the filibuster over Social Security reform in 2005, and I have indeed changed my mind on that, even if the GOP were to take the Senate. The simple fact is this: one of the two parties is going to end the filibuster at some point, it's just too tempting. What would be nice is if both parties could just agree to do it at some point down the road, though that seems unlikely. My thinking is pretty similar to Ezra Klein's on this, at least for now (see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/filibuster_reform_and_power_gr.html ).
Absent what Klein proposes, the Dems should just get rid of the thing--the Senate was never intended to function the way it is (not) functioning right now, and without ending the filibuster that way of functioning will become the norm. It will be bad PR if the Dems do it, but it would be worse if the GOP does it when they control the chamber again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Funny, Sen. Byrd would take serious issue with your claims that the filibuster was never intended to be a part of how the Senate was supposed to work from the outset.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
July 28, 2010 9:56 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Obviously that's not what I said, was it? I said the Senate was never intended to function the way it is now, i.e. with 60 votes the bar for basically all legislation, i.e. there is a de facto filibuster operating at all time. I'm fairly confident Byrd would agree with me there, but I'm not big on appeals to authority.
Frankly I'd rather keep the filibuster, but I'm also not going to pretend that this graph does not describe a serious departure from Senate tradition and, to my mind, a real long term problem. The Democrats helped create that problem too, obviously. If something can be worked out where we keep the filibuster but don't require most of the legislation to get 60 votes then I'm all for it.
In the absence of that, do you seriously think the current situation is acceptable, regardless of who is in power? I'm guessing the founders didn't anticipate the mess we're in now, so you'll have to convince me that not allowing the majority to (largely) rule is a democratic (small d) idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 11:25 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Fair enough. I agree that the filibuster is being abused, but then I would make the GOP pay a political price for it. Every word out of every Dem. pol in the media should be about the GOP blocking something like unemployment benefits. Make the story and the actual actions in the Senate about nothing else.
But that is a partisan tactical discussion, and not actually about the complete over-reaction that many on the left are suddenly demanding (i.e. scrapping the filibuster or rendering it a worthless tool for the minority to not be able to halt legislation). The removal of the filibuster (which you seem to agree is a bad idea) is seriously short-sited reaction to frustrations with speed and depth of progress in the Senate which would, if undertaken, have serious and hugely damaging impact and negative repercussions down-the road, because we cannot guarantee we will never be in the minority again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
July 29, 2010 12:26 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
I think removing the filibuster would be damaging down the road, no doubt, though it's probably actually impossible to say whether removing it would be better for the Democrats or Republicans--it depends on what happens in the next 20 or 50 election cycles.
When used as intended (i.e. not all the time) the filibuster can work well as a protection for minority rights, which are critical. But I think I'm convinced by Jonathan Chait's argument (and I'm often not convinced by him) expressed at http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76624/the-end-the-filibuster . Chait says:
"The rare use of the filibuster survived as long as it did because the legacy of Jim Crow created an odd arrangement where party ties did not correspond to ideology. That era is not going to return. The political environment is competitive and parties are not going to leave a weapon lying on the ground.
"That's why the filibuster's days are numbered: The majority does have the power to change the rules at the outset of a session. Democrats will make this notion a part of the party litany and demand it of candidates, and eventually the older Senators will be replaced by younger ones. More likely, the Republicans will simply change the rules first. This will happen the next time Republicans gain control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and more than 49 but fewer than 60 Senate seats. The old institutionalist concept of the Senate is mostly dead on the Republican side anyway. Gaining control of the White House and both chambers of Congress simultaneously is pretty hard to do anyway. There's no way Republicans are going to allow Democrats veto their agenda in such circumstance out of loyalty to a 1970s-era compromise."I think removing the filibuster would be damaging down the road, no doubt, though it's probably actually impossible to say whether removing it would be better for the Democrats or Republicans--it depends on what happens in the next 20 or 50 election cycles."
I think that's probably right, unless there's a massive upheaval that disrupts the way two-party politics has worked in recent years. If a compromise cannot be worked out (for example, both parties agree to end the filibuster in the Congress that begins in 2015, when we won't know anything about who will be president or in control of Congress), then Dems should try to end it when they feel they can (maybe 2013). It's a crappy option, for sure, but I don't think the filibuster is going to survive our contemporary environment, and I don't want the GOP to be the ones to put an end to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
July 29, 2010 7:53 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
It's not an overreaction. First of all, I guarantee you that the Republicans will eliminate the filibuster the next time they control the House, Senate and White House. Unless the Democrats don't use it. Second, the fate of the planet cannot rest on the quaint parliamentary traditions of the U.S. And there will never be 60 votes for a climate bill until it is much too late. Third, Byrd is dead. What he thought doesn't matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MasonMcD
July 29, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Wouldn't that Senate action require some similar bill in the House?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
July 29, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to FreeRider
I believe he's advocating changing the rules of the Chamber to correct that, in fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 28, 2010 6:45 PM
The filibuster is the only thing that saved Social Security from George Bush.
So first we eliminate the filibuster, then we lose seats in the Senate, then Obama's "deficit comission" reports that we should cut Social Security, and then Republicans for once don't say no, and we're all screwed. Nice plan.
The current working generation will be the one that has to provide for retirement twice; first, the Social Security tax won't go away unless you cut off grandma and your parents -- and seniors vote so no politition is that stupid. Second, even thought this generation will pay the tax, they will not be promised any benefit, so they better save, too, if they want to live after they are 67 and nobody will hire them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MobiusKlein
July 28, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to condew
Social Security change had no votes put off by the filibuster directly. Never got far enough to filibuster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 28, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to MobiusKlein
And the threat of a filibuster got the current administration and Senate to not even consider things that passed handily in the House; so what's your point?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MobiusKlein
July 29, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to condew
"what's your point?" During the Bush years, the House did NOT pass SS privatization, so your analogy is incorrect.
You should just argue that the THREAT of the filibuster sufficed to keep it back. I would argue that the threat of losing the House and Senate in 2006 and WH in 2008 was a bigger threat.
And for that, the SS debate did have some effect on those races in my opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
July 28, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to condew
Newsflash - Grandma has to save twice, too. Since the late 1980s we've had to do 401K /IRA savings if we can, since it's nearly impossible to live on SS alone. And I have been paying into the system for nearly 50 years. Damn straight I want my money!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 28, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to Powkat
And if I retire at 62, my above-average Social Security check would not even pay my health insurance premium. Medicare is the crisis we just don't talk about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
July 29, 2010 7:55 AM in reply to condew
Yep. There are disadvantages. No course of action is perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Buck
July 28, 2010 6:54 PM
If the filibuster is eliminated and the public then votes for Republican control of the Senate, the public has voted for Republican control of the Senate and should get their way. It's called democracy.
The filibuster shouldn't be completely eliminated; it should be restored to its original purpose, which was to allow debate to be extended because in the opinion of some, an issue hasn't been fully debated. However, the extension should have a time limit; it should mean "let's discuss this more before voting", not "let's never vote".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PartTimeRoadie
July 28, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to Joe Buck
Debate is only useful if people are capable of changing their opinions in the face of new/changing information.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 28, 2010 7:25 PM in reply to PartTimeRoadie
That sure doesn't describe 37 out of 40 Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
July 29, 2010 9:12 AM in reply to Joe Buck
As I understand it though, the country votes first and then, at the start of the next session of Congress, the Dems vote to modify the filibuster or eliminate it altogether.
The arguments here that the filibuster shouldn't be eliminated because the Dems might want to use it are really disheartening. The filibuster is, by definition, a device intended to allow the minority to frustrate the will of the majority. That's either acceptable or not. The argument that it's OK when we use it is just worthless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jim
July 28, 2010 7:18 PM
The headline of this post is factually incorrect based on the quote you provide at the end.
"It's been discussed," Durbin said. "Nobody's done that with the current Senate rules, so it would be a departure. I'm not going to rule it out or in. It will be a subject of conversation as we organize for the next Congress.... I would really want to take it to the caucus."
Progressives should refuse to support any senator who will not commit to vote in favor of majoritarian government.
Jim
commentsongpe.wordpress.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 28, 2010 7:34 PM in reply to Jim
If we were talking about government by reasonable, thoughtful legislators out to make sure everybody gets equal justice and a shot at the American dream, I'd agree with you. But sooner or later, we will be talking about Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 8:12 PM in reply to Jim
Progressives that refuse to support any senator who will not commit to vote in favor of majoritarian government have there heads firmly up their asses.
I never want to only have a 50 vote threshold to eliminate Social Security, the Department of Education, etc. should the GOP get to 51 seats in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 28, 2010 9:48 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
It's not at all certain that the Repugs would have stood lockstep behind privatization of social security had the threat of filibuster not been present. As it was, they knew that the proposal(s) would face a certain Democratic filibuster, had the vote ever been called. This gave many wavering GOPers some cover to SAY they favored W's plans, with the knowledge they'd never have to actually vote on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 29, 2010 2:44 AM in reply to CityGuy
And without that certain filibuster being a bullet in the belt for the Dems?
See, that is why I am gobsmacked that Democrats and progressives want to end the filibuster. It is like being in the political version of the movie Memento.
I am the only one that doesn't see this as some sort of screwed up short-term memory affectation/problem form the left abut what we were staring at just a few years ago?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
July 29, 2010 8:37 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
So when the Democrats are in the minority, we need the filibuster, and when they Democrats are in the majority, we need the filibuster because they will be in the minority again sometime? At what point do the Americans who voted Democrats into the majority get the policies they voted for?
In any endeavor, focusing solely on the potential problems is a guarantee of failure. Imagine what could have been accomplished since January of 2009 if there were no filibuster. That isn't worth any level of risk to you? Yes, the Republican could do terrible things if they were in the majority with no filibuster. But the Democrats could do great things if they were in the majority with no filibuster.
If we want long-term Democratic majorities, we need quality Democratic government. That is what will bring electoral victories. The situation as it stands guarantees that we cannot even attempt to truly solve any of our important problems, and therefore that we will never have a long-term Democratic majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
July 28, 2010 7:43 PM
This is about power. The filibuster is good when it keeps the Republicans from doing what they want. It is bad when it keeps the Democrats from doing what they want. If the Democrats pursue this before the next election they are complete idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
July 29, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to Skybolt
There's really nothing they can do about it before the next election. The Senate rules for this Congress are already in place, and 67 votes are needed to change them in mid-session.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 29, 2010 2:57 AM in reply to SqueakyRat
Senate rules are not like the House. The Senate is a continuing body, unlike the House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
July 29, 2010 8:14 AM in reply to SqueakyRat
That's true. My point is that they should not be promoting the idea now, because that will just set the stage for the Republicans to change the rules in their favor should they gain a majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 8:07 PM
Way to go Democrats, lets gut the filibuster just in time to possibly be in the minority.
(shakes head)
The rank hypocrisy of far too many on the left, who just a couple of years ago were getting all high-dungeon (and rightfully so and I include myself among them) about the "nuclear option" which Frist was threatening to do when we were in the minority, compared to now is breathtaking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 28, 2010 8:13 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Therein lies the rub doesn't it. It's like being between a rock and hard place. I do, however, have a hard time believing we will be in the minority. We may lose a few seats in the house but not major numbers. I still for the life of me can't see how anyone could vote for the repukes, except for 27% of the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 9:15 PM in reply to chameleon
We may not be in the minority in this cycle, or maybe even in the next 4 cycles, but we will at some point be in the minority again. The point however is that those clamoring to end the filibuster and become a less crowded version of the House are nuts and have zero long-term perspective on what a disaster it would be to strip the minority of being able to effectively slow down or stop a simple majority from unfettered passage of legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 28, 2010 10:30 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
I agree. I am positive the dems have considered this - perhaps it will look good to "propose" it. I doubt it was ever meant for such abuse - but then who knows. The whole system is just all mucked up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
July 28, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Yes, and an apple is EXACTLY like an orange!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 9:15 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
What a clueless comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
July 28, 2010 10:51 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
That's what always happens whenever his Michael Bolton's Greatest Hits CD is stuck on endless loop ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
July 28, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
The differences are considerable. Democrats filibustered a fair amount that term but did not require a majority vote on pretty much everything.
Nor has Obama put forward partisan Supreme Court candidates. They should have filibustered Roberts, who has turned out pretty radical, but they did not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 9:18 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
Thanks for bringing up nothing relevant to the central point you failed to address, that being that stripping the minority of effective tools of halting unfettered simple majority rule in the Senate would have long-term disastrous consequences.
And again, the rank hypocrisy of the left on this issue so pathetic as to be an embarrassment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
July 28, 2010 10:54 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Somewhere tonight, a lonely teabag is searching for its owner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 11:27 PM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
ROFLMAO
You think I am a tea-bagger? ROFL
Now THAT is comedy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 28, 2010 10:52 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
This kind of thinking offers only one possibility, at this point: not being able to do anything at all, whether you're in the majority or in the minority. Yes, if you're in the minority you can't completely block the passing of a law, which means laws that you don't like will probably be passed. But, when you're in the majority, isn't the goal to advance your agenda? That's impossible when the filibuster is used on everything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
July 30, 2010 12:34 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
That was an entirely different scenario. Frist was trying to change the Senate rules in the middle of a session. Thus, he would have broken the existing rules to create new ones. But if it's done at the start of a new Congress rather than mid-session, there are no rules until the Senate votes to establish them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
July 28, 2010 8:37 PM
Get tough, Democrats! Too much is at stake otherwise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leo Emmanuel Lochard
July 28, 2010 9:13 PM
Regarding filibuster reform, which would be "the camel's nose under the tent" affecting necessary legislative majority on bills, orders, resolutions, acts or votes that would also lead to majority voting affecting matters of grave concern to the nation, such as advice and consent of the Senate on treaties, we would recommend Senators and Representatives consult our Founding Fathers and the Constitution of the United States, notwithstanding the opinions of "a growing chorus of senators and experts."
From analyzing Publius articles by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, otherwise called Federalist Papers, preceding ratification of the Constitution by the original Thirteen States and during which principles to be enshrined into the Constitution were publically debated and discussed in New York newspapers, it is self-evident that America’s Founders desired, intended, purposed and willed that legislative processes would proceed in a deliberately studied and tedious manner, in order to provide as much time as possible for extensive consideration of public acts and enactments on the one hand, and on the other, to prevent the formation of coalition blocks that would result in concentrating controlling decision-making powers unto the same hands.
“On hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one….As little as it avails us that they chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason that convention which passed the ordinance of government laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive and judicial departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers/Publius No. 48
“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, (States and federal government), and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments (legislative, executive, and judicial). Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers/Publius No. 51
In addition, frequent elections and limited terms of office were to govern public service by representatives and senators so that they would have honorable incentives for remaining in power. With every citizen being given the constitutional right and open opportunity to equally serve, periodic elections and term limits would allow continuous connections between the people and their government for renewing and diversifying House and Senate membership to the greater good of the national interest.
“Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers/Publius No. 57
America’s Founders intended on the one hand to prevent the emergence of despotism and tyranny in government, and on the other, the sprouting of mob rule action and popular anarchy, hence their establishment of a “compound republic” with autonomously governed States with their own Constitutions, elections, separation of powers, checks-and-balances, etc . . . as the foundation for the federal government Constitution also governed by these “auxiliary precautions.”
From the above TPM article:
“With Republicans breaking their own filibuster records, both leading and rank-and-file Democrats have been studying various ways to end abuse of the rules by the minority. One of the leading proposals on the table is the so-called "Constitutional option." The Constitution grants both chambers the power to write their own rules. The Senate, as a continuing body, usually leaves the rules untouched, and changes require 67 votes. But a growing chorus of senators and experts now say the rule governing filibusters is unconstitutional insofar as it's used to prevent the Senate from adopting new rules.”
The current 67 votes requirement is the right preponderance of 2/3rd majority vote, as required by Article I of the Constitution of the United States for fundamental legislative matters requiring grave consideration that should not be disrupted by light and transient causes.
Thus, because this concerns a fundamental change of the Constitution, such as changing the required 2/3rd majority preponderance on legislative votes, “a growing chorus of senators and experts” do not have the proper constitutional power and authority for bringing about such a drastic change in the Constitution of the United States.
Due to the following constitutional prescriptions, therefore, the only way to change this original 2/3rd preponderant majority mandate, would to be to submit a constitutional amendment to all the States, which would require RATIFICATION BY 3/4TH OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE 50 STATES in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
In Constitution of the United States, Article I addressing the composition and operation of the United States Senate, every decision taken by that body requires, not a simple 51% majority, but a preponderant majority comprising 2/3rd of all Senators present:
(a) Article I, Section 3, regarding impeachments: “And no person shall be convicted without THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT.”
(b) Article I, Section 5, regarding disciplining a Senate (or House of Representatives) member: “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behaviour, and, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF TWO-THIRDS, expel a member.
(c) Article I, Section 7, regarding passing a bill sent to the President and returned by the President with objections: “If after reconsideration TWO-THIRDS OF THAT HOUSE (Senate or House of Representatives) SHALL AGREE TO PASS THE BILL, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, AND IF APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THAT HOUSE (Senate or House of Representatives), it shall become a law.”
(d) Article I, Section 7, regarding re-passing an order, resolution or vote that is to be approved or disapproved by the President for which concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary: “and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, SHALL BE REPASSED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.”
Therefore, A 2/3rd majority vote preponderance, or 67 votes, is ALWAYS required for approving legislation, not a simple fifty-one per cent majority, except for making journal entries, which is a mere procedure of recording yeas and nays.
(In Article I, Section 5, journal entry of yeas and nays votes is the only Senate or House decision—which is matter of session recording procedure rather than a question of substantive rights such as in the case of impeachment,—that does not require a preponderance of 2/3rd majority, but only one-fifth of members present: “And the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any questions shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cynickal
July 28, 2010 9:44 PM in reply to Leo Emmanuel Lochard
Uhm... no.
A) is for impeachments
B) is doe kicking out a Senator
C) is for overriding a veto
D) is for confirming an executive order or treaty
What's being discussed here is modification of the Senate rules of procedure, which require only a majority approval. The Constitutional question is "Can Republicans filibuster a motion to change the Senate rules."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 28, 2010 11:27 PM in reply to cynickal
Actually it doesn't call fro a simple majority rule vote, but must meet the cloture threshold since the Senate is a continuing body. Though I agree that the commentator you are replying to is talking crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marvc
July 29, 2010 2:44 AM in reply to Leo Emmanuel Lochard
The Constitution does not require the Senate to pass all legislation with a 2/3 majority vote. If that were so, then just about every law ever passed by any previous Congress would now be illegal and unconstitutional. The requirement for passing regular legislation is and always has been just 51 votes -- unless the minority filibusters and the majority then must evoke cloture with (currently) 60 votes. In the past, the number of votes required to invoke cloture was higher, once even 75 votes. Changes in Senate rules have reduced that number to 60 now, but that is a number NOT in the Constitution and it can be changed if the Senate so desires.
The absurdity of the argument that all bills must pass with 67 votes in the Senate to become law is patently ignorant and not set forth in the Constitution. Maybe you need to go back and read it again, this time reading it word-for-word instead of skimming. And the so-called "Constitutional" option is indeed very much a constitutional remedy because the Constitution clearly states that each body -- the House and the Senate -- can set its own rules and those rules are NOT spelled out in the Constitution other than for the very limited circumstances of ratifying treaties, expelling members, overriding vetos, and voting to convict an impeachment brought by the House of Representatives. All the rest requires only a simple majority of 51 votes. Go back and look at all the legislation passed by the previous 100+ Congresses and see just how wrong you are! Even Bush's tax cuts for the rich only passed via reconciliation with its necessary 51 votes -- not 67! As always, ignorance does not make you right just because it suits your political agenda of the moment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
July 30, 2010 12:44 AM in reply to Leo Emmanuel Lochard
Maybe you should learn a little history yourself. The Founding Fathers never intended for there to be filibusters. They were allowed for by accident, when a Senate rule that was believed to be redundant was eliminated in 1806. It was another 31 years before the first filibuster happened.
If you think the Senate is operating in the way the Founding Fathers intended, you're just wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leo Emmanuel Lochard
July 28, 2010 10:17 PM
Liberal Democrats want a change in filibuster majority percentage because they want to change the 2/3rd preponderant majority vote required in order to pass a law.
Changing the majority vote percentage from 2/3rd to only a simple 51% or one vote over a half of Senators to pass a law would be a fundamental change of the Constitution, and that requires a constitutional amendment for ratification by 3/4th of all 50 States legislatures, which would not be advisable due to destruction of safeguards, precautions and checks-and-balances so crucial to democratic and decentralized processes that prevent concentration of powers unto the hands of the same political party. "If it aint broke, don't fix it."
It's because the liberal Democrats are in "the majority party" now that they suddenly find a problem with filibustering; they did not complain when they were "the minority party" because they could then filibuster as well; and so they are complaining about the Constitution now, because they just would like to ram their partisan policies through without input from Republicans. That would not be constitutionally sound as all 100 Senators must have real voting power regarding all legislative enactments before the Senate. The required constitutional 2/3rd preponderant majority vote must involve concurrence by both Democrats and Republicans in order for legislation to be passed. That's the intent and purpose of America's Founders to preserve our great nation as a representative democratic republic. Otherwise, "the majority political party" would mess up the works and run this nation to the ground, and the other party would just be present but without any voting power. That would be unconstitutional as it would destroy democracy in our nation.
One more 2/3rd preponderant majority vote requirement, regarding treaties, under Article II, Section 2, duties of the President:
(e) Article II, Section 2: He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, PROVIDED TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR;" involving at least 67 Senators, from all political parties, which is the way it must be.
Another example proving that, constitutionally, there is no simple 51% majority in either the Senate or House of Representatives but ALWAYS 2/3rd preponderant majority vote as duly required by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 28, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to Leo Emmanuel Lochard
What are you talking about? On what world are Democrats suggesting a 50%+1 vote to override a Presidential veto?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jen R
July 28, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to Dylan
He seems to think that the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate just to pass a law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jen R
July 28, 2010 10:56 PM in reply to Leo Emmanuel Lochard
...the website you stole this theory from is written in Comic Sans, isn't it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 29, 2010 2:45 AM in reply to Jen R
LOL
As a graphic designer by vocation that made me snot bubble.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hrebendorf
July 28, 2010 11:16 PM in reply to Leo Emmanuel Lochard
That's not why Democrats have a problem with filibustering. The reason they have a problem is because the current Republican minority have been abusing their rights. They hold the all-time record for obstructionism. The filibuster was designed to allow principled objection to the majority. The current Republican minority HAVE no principles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HappyTim
July 28, 2010 11:10 PM
The big problem is the Republicans wanted to re-write the filibuster rules when they had the majority. Now the Dems want to re-write it. Any change should be far sighted enough to realize the Democrats will likely be out of power sometime in the next decade. We may want to be able to do what we want with a 51-49 majority, but we may not want the other guys to have the same power.
However, in this era of partisanship, 60 votes has become a huge obstacle. The filibuster was once the nuclear option, it's become commonplace especially for less hot-button issues like non-Supreme court judges. Something between 54 and 58 would be more reasonable to encourage legislation but not trample the right of the minority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hrebendorf
July 28, 2010 11:14 PM
I'm not against the filibuster, but they should actually be forced to filibuster. As it is, they all go home and no one actually does the "Mr. Smith" thing. If someone wants to filibuster, fine, but they should be required to hold the floor, and once they surrender it, the vote should continue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 29, 2010 2:47 AM in reply to hrebendorf
The Mr. Smith thing is a work of fiction.
When your position is based on a Hollywood work of fiction, you may want to give the matter a bit more reflection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 28, 2010 11:26 PM
The filibuster needs to be reformed. The GOP minority has abused it. Social Security privatization wasn't stopped by a filibuster. It never even had majority support.
No other country operates under such an effed up super majority requirement. And yes Mitchell, I am willing to countenance the 50 votes to pass GOP priorities.Elections need to have consequences.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 29, 2010 2:50 AM in reply to Michael
Sorry, we part ways I will vehemently oppose your bare majority threshold for Senate passage. The reason Social Security privatization went nowhere is the Democrats had the filibuster in their pocket ready to play on a third rail issue with a key voting demographic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
new10
July 28, 2010 11:29 PM
I'm against the filibuster. It's anti-democratic by definition. The Senate filibuster affords way too much power to only 41 people. The House of Representatives seems to work just fine without a filibuster rule.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
July 28, 2010 11:49 PM
I used to weakly defend the filibuster but that was before McConnell & Co. decided to abuse the filibuster to the point of absurdity.
So, I mean, look: Most state legislatures work just fine without any filibuster in the state senate. Like the first commenter on this proposed, maybe there should be some room for using the filibuster in single digit numbers during every Congress. That would be the way for the minority to throw the brakes on something they really felt was a matter of principle. But not every damned piece of legislation that ever comes up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 29, 2010 12:05 AM
The reconciliation process will already allow the GOP to gut social programs. Don't have 60 votes to get rid of the dept of education or legal aid? Just gut funding w/51 votes.
Even if we keep the filibuster the GOP will kill it the next time they are in control. Frist got a lot of blowback from the nutroots for the gang of 14 compromise in 2005 and they have more clout now than then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Early Out
July 29, 2010 7:36 AM
There's an awful lot of all-or-nothing absolutism being posted in this thread. I think most of us can agree that eliminating the filibuster entirely would raise the ugly specter of a 51-Senator majority ramming just about anything down the throats of the minority, something that the framers certainly wouldn't have approved of. Most of us would find it distasteful, as well, even if "our guys" are in control.
The problem with the current Senate rules is that they make it too easy to mount a filibuster. It should be available, so that a minority can stop a steamroller when necessary, when important principles are at stake. But it should be difficult. It shouldn't be possible for an obstructionist minority to block almost all legislation by sending some stooge out onto the Senate floor to say "I object" once in a while.
I'm no parliamentarian, and don't know how I would craft a rule like that. But some balance needs to be restored. Eliminating the filibuster would be a disaster. But leaving it structured like it is effectively robs the majority of its ability to carry out its electoral mandate. Any rule that has the effect of necessitating a 60-vote supermajority to pass any legislation is obviously flawed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Early Out
July 29, 2010 7:45 AM in reply to Early Out
In fact, maybe it should be altered precisely so that a Mr. Smith-style spectacle is what's required to maintain a filibuster. Change the rule so that filibustering really does mean that you have to "hold the floor."
At least then the public would be able to see exactly why certain legislation isn't being passed, and who's preventing it. Those conducting the filibuster would have to do so in a very visible way, in a way that makes for good television.
As it is, the Senate doesn't get things done, and the public is a little hazy about why. They need pictures!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcmchugh99
July 29, 2010 11:28 AM
The Republicans use this 60 vote rule on EVERY piece of legislation. That is certainly an abuse. They have become such an ultra-conservative party that they cannot tolerate any change at all and have no other ideas except to block it.
I think this is happening because they have an aging, white base that is really frightened of any type of change and doesn't really care about the future any more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brendancalling
July 29, 2010 12:48 PM
sure, i believe this.
i also believe in Santy Claus and the easter Bunny.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 29, 2010 1:12 PM
While this is a double edged sword, it cuts away the power to block from Democrats as well as Republicans. Today it serves the GOP but if the tide brings more Republicans ashore in the Senate, it would be a tool for the Democrats to exact their revenge by blocking GOP's agenda.
But really, why not a fair vote for bills without all these games. This rule subverts the majority and allows a single person to control the business of Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
July 30, 2010 12:47 AM in reply to Paul
If this had been done at the start of the 111th Congress, there would've been no need to water down bills to draw support of the Blue Dogs and the few remaining moderate Republicans. Then we could've accomplished so much more that the chance of Republicans taking back the Senate any time soon would be practically nonexistent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 29, 2010 2:38 PM
If the filibuster is to be retained in its present form, then a new rule should be imposed that mandates the presence of every single senator in the chamber during the duration of each one. If this were done, you'd see how quickly the use of filibusters would end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 29, 2010 3:05 PM
When the democrats are out of power (very possibly soon), you will wish you had left things "as is."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?