General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe filibuster isn't just absent from the Constitution - it's blatantly unconstitutional.
Link to tweet
Whether there is causation or not, the graph in Professor Reich's tweet regarding the increased use of the filibuster beginning in the late 70s tracks closely to the graph below.
Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/
librechik
(30,674 posts)Throw it into the dustbin of history, where it belongs. One person one vote. Across the board. (and that goes for the electoral college as well.
keithbvadu2
(36,819 posts)This filibuster crap is just that, repetitive whining. Both parties have had the opportunity to get rid of it but they both feel that it could be useful in the future.
PortTack
(32,771 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(145,291 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Please oh please god please.
Literally the entirety of my entire political life this cancer has made everything total trash.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)rules.
Only the Senate can act to change its rules.
Groundhawg
(555 posts)Kaleva
(36,307 posts)"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."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-5/
Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)(snip)
Amendment XVII (1913)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
(snip)
https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec1
For one Senator to simply state their opposition and their vote become the power of 11 Senators, that's the De Facto effect.
Thus I believe a filibuster as currently practiced unless specifically authorized in the Constitution is in itself more than one vote by a Senator and thus in violation of the 17th Amendment.
former9thward
(32,017 posts)They are authorized to do that in the Constitution. Each Senator does have one vote. There is no conflict.
Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)If every Senator has one vote then 51 49 wins, any more votes required than a simple majority to pass policy diminishes the value of one Senator's vote below 1.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...has power over the other 79%.
The framers surely did not want this.
I say, OK, we don't want to get rid of the 60 vote rule, just get rid of the silent filibuster. It's social media time. Let these psychopathic Republicans blather on and give us little soundbytes to rip them into shreds.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)The 60 vote requirement is to end debate, not for passage of the underlying bill.
Every senator still has one vote, the Constitution still empowers each chamber to set their own rules.
Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)The Senators' individual votes are diminished to less than 1 as a result of filibuster requiring a super-majority for issues and polices not covered in the Constitution.
Each chamber can set its' own rules so long as they don't violate the Constitution but the current manifestation of the filibuster is in conflict with the 17th Amendment as it damages or degrades the Senators' one vote rule.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)It is not a fig leaf it is how the Senate has chosen to structure its rules.
Aside from all this, these rules will persist until members decide to change them. Courts would never entertain a challenge asking them to referee an internal rules fight in the Senate, this is a classic political question.
Kaleva
(36,307 posts)"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."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C2-1/ALDE_00001041/
brooklynite
(94,588 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Under an originalist majority rule interpretation. It's convincing.
The filibuster should've been changed to end debate to 51 votes a long time ago. Especially with the silent filibuster being the practice.
brooklynite
(94,588 posts)An important point. The Filibuster does NOT prevent the passage of legislation. The Filibuster prevents the ending of debate on an issue. It is arguably no different than requiring that a Bill first be approved by a Committee or a Rules Committee determination of debate and voting process. Fully within the "rules of its proceedings" provision.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Reich is arguing an originalist view? That the filibuster didn't originally exist, that the constitution favored majority rule, all that jazz?
I agree though that the filibuster is not stopping a vote, it is simply the proceedings at large and I think one could make that argument, but an originalist court may not be swayed.
As I said when Sanders did his dog and pony show, any Senator may call for a vote on a piece of legislation, which of course would result in a filibuster, but then, you do it again. And again. And you keep doing it until the whole country goes WTF is going on.
brooklynite
(94,588 posts)You won't get that Republicans voting against it message, because the first thing you'll need to do is get a majority to approve bringing the Bill TO a vote. That is considered the prerogative of the Majority Leader, and I'm not aware that Schumer will support it.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Senate Rule VIII, paragraph 2, which provides for the motion to proceed, places no restrictions on who may offer the motion.
Ironically McConnell is one of the people who has used this procedure in the past. Rules for thee, not for me, and all.
brooklynite
(94,588 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)tritsofme
(17,379 posts)of refereeing a Senate rules dispute.
If ever there was an example of a political question that courts do not touch, this would be one of them.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)by Madeleine Polubinski
Excerpt:
The text of the Constitution and the history of Congress suggest that the filibuster as a debate-enhancing mechanism is constitutional. As legal scholar Michael Gerhardt argues, the filibuster derives its principle authority from the Senates express power to design its own procedural rules to govern its internal affairs. At its core, the filibuster regulates internal procedure, and thus the supermajority requirement for cloture is well within the Senates power.
Many scholars argue that cloture requirements reflect many of the principles underlying the Senate. Despite its potential for abuse, the filibuster, fundamentally a mechanism to continue debate, embodies the Senates deliberative nature. Although the Constitution makes no mention of a filibuster, the process has a long history dating back to 1806, which some argue proves its legitimacy. Furthermore, the filibuster may enhance protections of minority interests and promote consensus, producing more agreeable and thorough legislation.
However, the filibusters debate-promoting potential is inextricable from, and ultimately overshadowed by, its obstructionist implementation. For more than a century, senators have exploited cloture rules to stall Congress or block legislation altogether. Filibusters have become less about debate and more about grandstanding for media attention or simply killing time to stall a bill. After exhausting relevant topics, which are rarely genuine efforts for further deliberation, speeches often devolve into unrelated topics that range from discussions of salad dressing recipes to recitations of each states voting laws.
When considering the filibuster as a supermajority requirement for regular legislation, it is clearly unconstitutional.2 As a textual matter, the Constitution appoints the Vice President as the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, providing that they shall have no Vote unless [the Senators] be equally divided. This provision implies that the Senate must pass regular legislation by a majority vote. The Framers of the Constitution, while concerned with tyranny of the majority, generally favored majority rule except for certain cases. In fact, the specification of supermajority requirements in the Senate elsewhere in the Constitution, like for the ratification of treaties, indicates that the Framers never envisioned a supermajority rule for regular legislation.1
https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/tyranny-of-the-minority-the-unconstitutionality-of-the-filibuster/