Reprint of my article
originally posted here
on February 4, 2017
The filibuster rule can be
traced back to Julius Caesar
when the Roman Senate
was required to finish business
before sunset.
Cato the Younger blocked legislation
Caesar wanted by talking until sunset.
Caesar then threw Cato in jail
for that 'filibuster'.
The worthy goal of a
parliamentary filibuster
is to allow a member
of the minority party
to force a long debate
on legislation he opposes.
A filibuster allows
any minority party member
o stand up and speak
about any legislation
until he runs out of steam.
Filibusters are not
in the US Constitution.
They exist because of
a Senate rule, and could be
eliminated by a simple majority vote.
Filibusters were rarely used
in the Senate when they required
a Senator to be at his desk,
and on his feet, talking without a break.
In 1917 a new filibuster "cloture" rule
(rule to end a filibuster) was approved,
requiring a two-thirds vote
of those present to end a filibuster
(later changed to three-fifths
of the Senate, or 60 votes).
The new cloture rule
did not result in many filibusters,
because any filibuster
halted all other Senate business
until it was over.
From 1917 to 1969,
there were 58 filibusters:
(an average of 1.1 per year
over those 52 years).
But from 1970 through 2016,
there were about 1,700 filibusters:
(an average of 37.0 per year
over those 46 years).
What changed in 1970?
In 1970, Senate Majority Leader
Mike Mansfield launched
a "two-track system"
that allowed the Senate
Minority Leader to bypass
a filibustered bill
and move on to
ther Senate business.
The new bypass rule
meant a filibustering Senator
didn't have to talk all day.
Filibusters were used
to force debate on a bill before 1970.
That was good.
Filibusters were used
to prevent debate on a bill after 1970.
That is very bad.
Harry Reid, for example,
got the Senate to ignore
hundreds of bills
sent from the House
of Representatives
in the last two-year session
of Congress.
His Democrat minority
in the Senate used filibuster rules
o deliberately gridlock
the entire Congress.
But ... Congress exists
to make laws by majority vote
-- not to be gridlocked
by a stubborn minority party
in the Senate.
Gridlock encourages the President
to make "temporary laws"
using executive orders.
Obama used the Congressional
gridlock to seize more power,
always saying:
'If Congress fails to act, I will'.
Obama made "temporary laws"
with his pen and phone
(executive orders).
This was a huge blow
to the intent of our Constitution
-- separation of power --
I believe Obama should have
been impeached (he would not
have been convicted, but he should
not have been allowed
to set that precedent,
without any punishment).
And now Trump is following
Obama's precedent,
and Democrats don't like it at all.
Trump is governing with executive orders.
And Obama's old executive orders are being overturned by Trump's new executive orders.
The Obvious Solution:
Filibuster rule changes in 1970
must be reversed to return
to the original good intent
of a filibuster.
How to end Congressional gridlock
by the minority party in the Senate:
One precedent:
In 2013 Senate Democrats
in the majority lowered
the filibuster cloture rule
from a three-fifths vote, t
o a majority vote,
for all Presidential nominees
under the level of
a Supreme Court justice.
Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid had imposed
new cloture rules
to prevent Republicans
n the minority
rom using filibusters
to block Obama's nominees.
That didn't make any friends
with Republicans, but it worked.
Actions Needed Now:
The US Constitution
could be used as the basis
to change the Senate
filibuster rules
to avoid gridlock.
Article I, Section 5
of the US Constitution
allows each house of Congress
to set its own rules.
In the Senate, one-third
of the Senators are elected
every two years.
That led to the tradition
of calling the Senate
a "continuing body".
As a "continuing body",
Senate rules were allowed
to continue unchanged
with each new session
of the Senate (every two years).
That "continuing body"
precedent should be ignored.
Senate rules should be reviewed
and changed, if desired,
every two years rather than
doing nothing and operating
on precedent (the old rules).
Each new session of the Senate
already disregards all
pending motions
at the end of
the previous Congress.
the previous Congress.
Each new session of Congress
should also disregard
all prior Senate rules
at the end of the previous Congress.
The Senate can make new rules
with a simple majority vote.
Republicans control the Senate now.
They must reform the filibuster rules immediately.
The minority party Democrats
in the Senate must no longer
be allowed to stop
he entire Congress
from making new laws
... which encourages the President
o bypass Congress to get his way
with executive orders, used in a way
that is NOT constitutional.
What is a dictator?
A dictator is a leader
able to make new "laws",
bypassing the legislature
and the courts.
With every administration,
the US President and
his Executive branch
of the government
seizes more power,
and moves closer
to a dictatorship.
Bush gave us secret surveillance
of the American people.
Obama gave us "lawmaking"
by executive order,
bypassing Congress.
bypassing Congress.
Senate filibuster rules
currently allow the Senate
minority party to gridlock
the entire Congress
-- new Senate rules,
set by a majority vote,
are desperately needed.
Will Republicans do this,
r are they cowards?
Perhaps I am biased,
having voted for only one Republican
in my entire life, but I think
the Republicans are cowards
(of course I can always hope
they do the right thing).
Senate minority party
filibusters
should not be allowed
to stop most of the work
of the entire legislative branch
of our government.
