|
|
<< Annan: More in Danger from AIDS than Iraq | Main | End of Tax Cut Politics >> January 15, 2003Do Filibuster Rules Survive from last Senate?The Dems are using their filibuster power to block transition to GOP chairing of all committees and a cut in Dem-controlled budgets on each committee. But if the organizational rules for the new Senate term have not been approved, does the filibuster power even exist for the Dems? The filibuster is not in the Constitution and it's not legislation, but is merely part of the Senate's "Rules of its Procedings" which each House may determine for itself under Article I, Section 5(2) of the Constitution. But do such rules, approved for a previous Senate by its members, have any force on a subsequent elected Senate? Theoretically, a new Senate term could abolish the filibuster by majority vote by refusing to approve those old rules, and then approve a whole new set of Rules by majority vote. What the status of the Rules are, now that the Senate has actually cast some votes under some preliminary operating rules, is an open question, but during the 1950s, when abolishing the filibuster (a harder version then where a mere one-third of legislators could block all legislation) was the prime goal of liberals, this became an active issue. In 1953, 1955, and 1957, as detailed in Robert Caro's MASTER OF THE SENATE, the liberal Senators tried to introduce resolutions the first day of the new Senates to abolish the filibuster. In 1957, they had even negotiated a deal with Vice President Nixon, who would be presiding, to make a parliamentary ruling that the Senate was not a "continuing body" from the previous session and thus had no ongoing rules that could restrain majority vote, until such time as new rules declaring as such were approved. However, Johnson played various parliamentary games to get those motions tabled, so the issue was never directly addressed. But it does seem that the filibuster is an artifact of majority consensus and could, if the Senate wanted to, be abolished by majority vote at the beginning of the session. Posted by Nathan at January 15, 2003 07:44 AM Related posts: ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Jan 01, 2005 Bad Day for Human Rights - Nov 30, 2004
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsIt's too dangerous in a 51-49 Senate. If the GOP tried to eliminate the filibuster, they'd probably be tempted to keep it gone for the entire session. That would be seen as an attempt to ram though things like the dividend tax cut and Pickering nominations on strict party-line vote, eliminating the power of the swing moderates on both sides of the aisle. In that case, I think that a Snowe or a Chafee could easily decide to vote for Daschle as majority leader. The GOP would then find itself without any instutional power -- and no filibuster protection. It could just too easily come back to bite them in the ass. Posted by: Matt Deatherage at January 15, 2003 02:27 PM The answer is that the Senate is a continuing body; it does not reorganize every two years anew like the House of Representatives. One third of the members start new terms each two years, but the majority does not. So the Senate rules in existence during the "previous" Congress remain in effect until the Senate adopts a new set of rules in its organizing resolution. Posted by: Sam Coppersmith at January 15, 2003 03:20 PM According to history, it's actually not clear that the Senate is a continuing body, despite carry over of members because of staggered terms. Each Congress, including the Senate, is referred to as a new one, and legislation passed in a previous Congress is completely dead and has to start over. And theoretically, it seems undemocratic that Senate rules, which may no longer even have a majority of remaining Senators who voted for them still in a new Senate, should be able to bind them. If this were true, an outgoing lameduck Senate could work all sorts of mischief by passing highly restrictive rules of procedure, then have a minority use the filibuster to block any changes. In a sense, the current Democratic actions are a small mirror of such gamesmanship, which may be working for progressives in the short-term, but has a long institutional history of undermining progressive goals. Posted by: Nathan Newman at January 15, 2003 03:31 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|