Should the US Senate Do Away with the Filibuster?

2017-08-29T12:12:29-04:00

Some politicians and pundits have suggested US Senate Rules should be changed to do away with the filibuster because of the difficulty the Republicans are having moving legislation through the Senate during 2017. Filibuster is the parliamentary tactic used to obstruct the passage of legislation. I will be looking at the pros and cons of removing the filibuster.

The Standing Rules of the US Senate control Senate business processes. The rules are based on the US Constitution, Article One, Section 5: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” There are very few restrictions on what a Senator may say on the Senate floor or how long they can speak. Senators may make no more than two speeches on a motion or bill during the same legislative day, but they are allowed to talk for as long as they want to - which could delay or kill a bill (AKA filibuster). The goal for some Senators is to continue speaking until the time for debate expires or the debate is ended. Closing a debate is called “cloture.” Senate Rule XXII, Precedence of Motions, controls how debate may be closed and states that sixteen Senators must sign a petition to close debate and present it to the presiding officer. The presiding officer will then call for a vote on cloture. Three-fifths of the Senators duly elected and sworn in are required to vote in favor of cloture to end a debate.

In 1806, the Senate Rules were changed, opening the way for the filibuster. It was used infrequently in the 19th Century, but in 1917, the Senate Rules were modified constraining its use. In 1970, the Senate adopted a two-track system allowing progress on other business when a filibuster is in process. The two-track rule made the threat of the filibuster more political and practical because the filibuster would no longer shut down all work on the Senate floor. A Senator may continue speaking for as long as he or she does not sit or leave the Senate floor. Senators will often talk about a variety of things during a filibuster, including reading the Constitution, the Bible, and Doctor Seuss books. In 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond, D-SC, held the floor for 24 hours filibustering civil rights legislation. More recently, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) filibustered judicial nominations. In 2013, the Senate changed its rules to require only a majority vote to reach cloture on executive nominations except nominations for the Supreme Court; in 2017, cloture on Supreme Court nominations was also changed to a majority. Normal legislation, rule changes, and some other Senate business remain subject to a filibuster. In effect, the filibuster threat has turned the US Senate into a 60-vote institution to get any legislation approved.

The Constitution anticipated a majority would rule except in those specific matters spelled out in the document, e.g., 2/3 of Senate must approve a treaty. Alexander Hamilton cautioned that requirements for a super majority was one of the primary problems with the Articles of Confederation (Federalist Papers Number 22). Mr. Hamilton warned the result of requiring a supermajority to conduct operations, “is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.” Events since the inauguration of President Donald Trump indicate Mr. Hamilton was correct. The public sees the amount of time and energy expended in the Senate with nothing accomplished. Filibustering is not done haphazardly. Both Democrats and Republicans use the filibuster, depending on whether or not they are in the minority. It is hard to give up the filibuster when a party knows they may be the minority in the next election.

Those who like the filibuster say it has been an important part of the American political system. The filibuster allows for more debate, and may force the two parties to come together to talk about the bill and come to a compromise. They believe the filibuster is a safeguard to the democratic principles of the American political system. Throwing it away would mean losing an element that forces the majority to listen to the minority. It allows the minority to have a chance to make themselves and their opinions heard.

Those who believe the filibuster should be done away with believe it creates too much competition and partisanship. It allows politicians to keep focus along party or caucus lines and pushes further away from working together to compromise. If the filibuster was banned, then more legislation would get through the Senate. They further believe the filibuster is a waste of time, money, and effort that should be spent reaching agreement on legislation that is good for the American people.

What do you think?

--
Information in this article is from Wikipedia and Pol411.student.blogspot, April 15, 2010, “An American Tale: The Filibuster and the Debate Over the Filibuster”

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 29 at 2017 12:14 PM

2017-08-29T12:14:03-04:00

The House has survived without such a rule. Why can't the Senate?

Response by LTC Orlando Illi made Aug 29 at 2017 12:21 PM

2017-08-29T12:21:02-04:00

Is there a question here????

Response by MAJ James Woods made Aug 29 at 2017 12:25 PM

2017-08-29T12:25:39-04:00

Well it was definitely apparent during the ACA repeal effort how difficult for Republicans to just get all their Senators on board let alone negotiate with Democrats for 51 votes. The strategy of changing rules instead of finding common ground will only continue to destroy democratic republic principles of our country.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Aug 29 at 2017 12:34 PM

2017-08-29T12:34:36-04:00

They'd be lost without it.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Aug 29 at 2017 12:34 PM

2017-08-29T12:34:45-04:00

When the Republicans were in the minority under Obama, they swore the filibuster was a necessity. Now they want to end it?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 29 at 2017 12:35 PM

2017-08-29T12:35:30-04:00

If it were up to me, it would be eliminated from Senate rules, since the seem to be able to bypass it through existing rule suspension. Don't remember it being very effective when the Republicans were in the minority. (e.g., Obamacare and DODD-Frank) Most complains come from the current minority party.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Aug 29 at 2017 12:39 PM

2017-08-29T12:39:56-04:00

No. What they need to do is restore it to it's original rules, such as requiring the Senator to remain on the floor.

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Aug 29 at 2017 12:41 PM

2017-08-29T12:41:08-04:00

The Republican controls all facet of the government, the executive, legislative, and judiciary. I'm sure removing the filibuster when you control congress is the best way to pass bills for the rich while screwing the poor. I like that logic, couldn't be better....except when the Democrat controls the government then all hell breaks lose and suddenly we're all fiscally responsible to cut spending.

Response by PFC Lisa McDonald made Aug 29 at 2017 12:52 PM

2017-08-29T12:52:05-04:00

I believe if properly used the filibuster can serve a great purpose.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Aug 29 at 2017 12:52 PM

2017-08-29T12:52:23-04:00

Lt Col Jim Coe "The filibuster allows for more debate, and may force the two parties to come together to talk about the bill and come to a compromise."
If that intent was reality, id be all for it, but history clearly demonstrates its actual use is "parliamentary tactic used to obstruct the passage of legislation."

I am not nearly smart enough how to remove the rule and write one that allows for more intelligent, effective on topic debate and forbids its use as a political weapon to "obstruct the passage of legislation."

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 29 at 2017 1:02 PM

2017-08-29T13:02:33-04:00

Yes -the device was intended to promote comprehensive discussion yet has turned into a tool to keep ideas from even being heard. As well its being used more frequently and although rules around it allow other business to proceed - its very disruptive. Now with virtual filibusters being allowed, small numbers of senators can effortlessly place personal political agendas above the work of government with no consequence and as such it promotes partisan politics. Its more or less a rule designed to prevent or at least slow down progress.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Aug 29 at 2017 1:21 PM

2017-08-29T13:21:51-04:00

SFC Jim Ruether Yes...

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2017 1:32 PM

2017-08-29T13:32:58-04:00

Looks to me like one your personal phobias, LTC Bloom ... an insidious Yes or No question!!!

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 29 at 2017 1:42 PM

2017-08-29T13:42:55-04:00

I'm looking at it more from a historical perspective. Back in the day, the two parties were closer together and the debate was about how/what it affected the citizens. Remember, Blue Dog Democrats were middle Republicans in the '60s. Both parties moved to extremes and the debate is about optics, armageddon, and blame. No wonder why John Q has no faith in the Congress. So the question is what needs to happen to improve it. Good idea to shift back to staying on the floor (original rules). The thread focuses on the rules where I believe the focus needs to be on who we put there first and the rules second. Both need to change, but all we'll see is rules that favor one over the other when the rules shouldn't favor. The Senate, which like the Supreme Court, was once world wide recognized as the best examples of government serving the people, are now both the laughing stock of the world. I see the incumbents don't respect the Government and its processes like they used to. Rather they are now attempting to weaponize the Government. That's a frightful path they're going down.

Response by SGT David T. made Aug 29 at 2017 2:05 PM

2017-08-29T14:05:57-04:00

It may have had good intentions in the beginning, but now it is abused. It really serves no useful purpose but to delay the inevitable. In the end it solves nothing and is simply a waste of time and money. I have an alternate proposal. Eliminate political parties. Then things would get interesting.

Response by SSG Jimmy Cernich made Aug 29 at 2017 2:33 PM

2017-08-29T14:33:00-04:00

Yes its a waste of time and breath.To hear a senator stand and read an children's book is ridiculous,especially with what is going on in the world today.This a a part of the reason our govt is messed up.

Response by MSG Mark Million made Aug 29 at 2017 3:13 PM

2017-08-29T15:13:34-04:00

I say the congress wastes enough time and accomplishes little enough when there is no filibuster. I think that it needs to go away, wasting time is just that wasting time. Purposely wasting the taxpayers time in my mind amounts to fraud, waste and abuse.

Response by Sgt Martin Querin made Aug 29 at 2017 3:17 PM

2017-08-29T15:17:24-04:00

The problem is a lack of character Colonel. We have elected men and women of mean character that have little room for duty and are focused instead on what they believe is best for them to retain power, rather than committing to do the best by the citizens of this great nation. If there is a compromise to be made that they know is not in the best interest of the Country, they legitimize it by believing the falsehood that it affords them the opportunity to rise to higher heights of power and then they will FINALLY be in the ultimate position to "do good". But once there it is the allure of "the next" position that once again causes their own weak personal constitution based on relative truth and morals to falter and compromise their moral obligations and duty.

Our elections have become little more than a High School student body election; a series of gratuitous popularity contests...more entertainment than a well reasoned and rational selection of the Executive Officers and Board of Directors of a Trillion dollar corporation with 350-million stockholders and a license to kill. If we change the filibuster I am afraid it won't change the stripes of the people in both parties that we have too often carelessly elected to govern this great nation...maybe it will reduce their individual power a little and that wouldn't be all bad.

Martin
Semper Fi

Response by Maj John Bell made Aug 29 at 2017 3:55 PM

2017-08-29T15:55:44-04:00

Depending on the legislative process, 50%+1, three fifths, two thirds or three fourths are required for an action to pass. In my opinion, the founding father's never intended us to be a majority rules nation. I think that was smart on their part. I believe we as a nation would be better off if every piece of legislation required at least a super majority of three fifths. Then we would have a country that acts on overwhelming consensus.

Response by SGT Kevin Berman made Aug 29 at 2017 4:12 PM

2017-08-29T16:12:09-04:00

I would support removing the 'two track' system and if a Senator wants to filibuster, they have to get and talk - today they only have to threaten.

Response by MSgt Ken Flood made Aug 29 at 2017 4:40 PM

2017-08-29T16:40:00-04:00

What they should do away with is 30+ year Senitors and Congressmen. Limit terms to two terms just like the President.

Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Aug 29 at 2017 5:45 PM

2017-08-29T17:45:20-04:00

Here's a better rule change. All bills must be limited to 20 pages in length unless pages extending beyond 20 are an itemized list of all expenses associated with the bill. All bills must be posted to the Congress website for 30 days prior to the vote (excluding declarations of war, or emergency relief). This will allow people to contact their representatives about proposed legislation.

Response by Darren Koenig made Aug 29 at 2017 7:31 PM

2017-08-29T19:31:48-04:00

In a country where the two major parties are increasingly polarized - yet very nearly equally divided in the number of people represented by each - the threat of filibuster is one of the only tools that exist with which to force compromises. In the absence of a meaningful third party which could force coalitions to create a middle ground, keeping this archaic and outdated mechanism seems like the best option we currently have.

But I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of many on this thread that electing better servants of the people is always in the best interests of a representative democracy...and we haven't done a great job of that in recent decades.

Response by Joxua Luxor made Aug 29 at 2017 8:05 PM

2017-08-29T20:05:30-04:00

Obstructionism appears to be a form of Passive Aggression. Anger comes from feelings of being thwarted. A person who feels thwarted wants to thwart other people. I think people should have to prove their argument though rational debate.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2017 10:35 PM

2017-08-29T22:35:41-04:00

I think they should remove the two-track system and require any senator wanting to filibuster to actually hold the floor. Get rid of the "paper" filibuster.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Aug 30 at 2017 9:40 AM

2017-08-30T09:40:24-04:00

NO! The Framers knew exactly what they were doing when they created the Constitution with its system of checks and balances. Because people are technologically backward does not make them unsophisticated!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2017 11:31 AM

2017-08-30T11:31:59-04:00

Changing the filibuster rule will not do anything but place the legislation in a seesaw state each time the control changes. The filibuster is not the problem. The problem is LIFETIME members. If you had term limits, a person would not have the ability to gain such a foothold on his party. Lets look at John McCain. He wears the republican banner, but his policies are so far left field that he should uncoward himself and claim to be a Democrat. Sames go to Democrats that vote outside of their party principles. Politicians have themselves in mind on every decision they make. They do not live by the same laws and standards as the people. That is the working people who have a stake in political decisions.

MY choice is to not throw out the filibuster and say it is the problem. I say throw out the trash that truly stinks. That is the life long politician!

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 31 at 2017 6:28 PM

2017-08-31T18:28:49-04:00

The Filibuster has a purpose -- namely to give the minority opinion a voice, but it has been abused for the purposes of political obstructionism. Our Founding Fathers had to assume that the people we elected would be upright people of sound, ethical judgment and high moral character. Sadly, that hasn't proven to be the case. It's a shame that the members of Congress WE elected are so easily bought by special interests and given over to corruption. Many go to DC with the best of intentions and then quickly forget who elected them.

Response by LCpl Kim Kroeger made Sep 1 at 2017 11:35 AM

2017-09-01T11:35:43-04:00

Isee the need to do away with the filibuster because of the political antics for the past 30 it has been getting worse. I actually wish with have a convention of the states to put in term limits.
The senate would run much better without so many 20,30 and 40 year politicians at the helm. Most run everything through a political prism with no concern for our country.
Why would anyone have to raise millions of $$$ like here in NH for a position that pays only $175 k ? It all boils down to control by a political party and not in the interests of "we the people".

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Sep 15 at 2017 10:29 AM

2017-09-15T10:29:59-04:00

I honestly think we should just reverse the rule changes of the last couple of years. The filibuster we tend to see now is just what I call "fiat filibuster." I.e. - "You may assume that I am filibustering, therefore I win!!"

I do think the filibuster has a place in the Senate. It is intended as a principled last stand. But it really is a nuke. Make the dude (or dudette) talk nonstop, without bathroom breaks. Shut down ALL other Senate business. It will still be there if you think you need to make a principled stand (or buy time for your allies in a smoke filled back room to cut deals, whatever) - but it should require you to ACTUALLY make that stand.

Simple majorities should be required to end debate everywhere a higher standard is not explicitly stated in the constitution. One of the advantages of being in the majority is.... being in the majority. Actually, I would support a somewhat smaller number being needed for cloture. I think 16 might be too low, but maybe 40%. Remember, a vote for cloture is literally a vote that a vote on the underlying matter should take place. It isn't a vote for or against the underlying matter. The only reason to vote against cloture is that you know your side doesn't have the votes on the base issue, and you are unwilling to accept that.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Sep 20 at 2017 2:49 PM

2017-09-20T14:49:40-04:00

hard to say... really haven't seen a *REAL* fillibuster... not in my lifetime.

Response by SPC Joe Davenport made Sep 25 at 2017 8:18 PM

2017-09-25T20:18:10-04:00

It should revert back to the original idea: A last stand to prevent a vote you know you will lose UNLESS your oration can sawing a large number of votes AND you must speak the whole time.

Response by Chef Benson K Saenger made Sep 29 at 2017 1:45 PM

2017-09-29T13:45:27-04:00

We wouldn't be able to slow or stop the passing of ignorant liberal politics.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Oct 4 at 2017 12:03 PM

2017-10-04T12:03:40-04:00

No. It is a valuable tool.

Response by PO2 Arthur Shemet made Oct 16 at 2017 10:02 AM

2017-10-16T10:02:18-04:00

I believe if they actually had to do what a filibuster entailed it would be effective. Just calling for one is stupid and a delaying tactic. I do believe that the nuclear option should be used more often if the Republicans really want to pass real legislation and change the current status quo

Response by CPO Jerry Lawrence made Oct 21 at 2017 10:26 AM

2017-10-21T10:26:17-04:00

No. Once it is gone it is gone. I understand the desire by the Right to do away with it in order to pass bills through the Congress. This is a power that should not ever be eliminated simply to get your way in the present because of a lack of foresight of the future. Once your party is out of power you no longer have a voice in the future to prevent the new opposition power party from becoming a complete dictatorship. Can you imagine in a few short years if the Democrats come to power and decide to eliminate the 2nd Amendment due to a lack of opposition?

Response by LCpl Donald Faucett made Oct 25 at 2017 11:34 AM

2017-10-25T11:34:56-04:00

Yes. It's a waste of time, and insane.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Oct 28 at 2017 11:23 PM

2017-10-28T23:23:16-04:00

They need to stand at the podium and speak. None of this notifying the chair of your intent bullshit

Response by SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter made Nov 18 at 2017 1:29 AM

2017-11-18T01:29:21-05:00

Let's see what have they done for us lately? We don't want hand outs we only what we deserve. Yeah and by the way you bunch of sorry A** politicians keep your hands off taking away benefits for service members and Veterans.

Peace!

Response by SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter made Nov 19 at 2017 1:46 PM

2017-11-19T13:46:18-05:00

Perhaps they should do away with each other!

Response by SPC David Willis made Dec 27 at 2017 12:38 PM

2017-12-27T12:38:54-05:00

Congress has got to stop changing procedural rules to make it convenient for the party in power. It always comes back around to bite them in the ass.