Filibuster should no longer rule Senate
In a democracy, majority rules. There is one notable exception: The United States Senate, where the minority rules by using the filibuster. It is time that majority rule got more respect there.
Because it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, 41 senators can block virtually any bill. And, because Senate action on House bills is stymied as well, and confirmation of appointments to the executive branch and to the federal courts are too frequently blocked, all three branches of the government are unable to properly perform the people's business.
This cannot be the intent of the framers of the Constitution. It is long past time for the Senate to return to using the filibuster rule sparingly, modify the rule or eliminate it altogether.
In virtually every other legislative or judicial body - whether it be the City Council in Waterloo, Ia., or the U.S. Supreme Court - the vote of a simple majority of the membership carries the day. Exceptions prove the rule: A super majority is required for Senate ratification of a treaty, for example, and a bond election in Iowa requires 60 percent voter approval. Otherwise, 50 percent plus one is sufficient.
The Senate as established in Article I of the U.S. Constitution was designed to make decisions with a simple vote of the majority, according to Yale constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar and former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart writing in the online magazine Slate. "Several of the Constitution's provisions prescribing super majorities make little sense unless we assume that majority rule was the self-evident default rule," they wrote. "Thus, Article I presupposed that each house would pass bills by majority vote - except when trying to override presidential vetoes, which would require a special super majority."
Both parties have been frustrated by the filibuster when each was blocked by the party in the minority. Senate Democrats are fuming about filibusters today, when they have a slight majority. Yet the shoe was on the other foot in 2005 when Democrats used the filibuster to block judicial appointments.
The Senate is a small and privileged body steeped in rich tradition. It is not likely to do away with two centuries of senatorial courtesy. The idea that any one of 100 senators is just as important as the other 99 is a powerful tradition. That tradition allows a senator to be heard, as long as he or she wants, to slow down the process and to have a contrary view fully aired. In the past, that tradition was the exception. Today it is the rule, and the Senate has been transformed from the world's greatest deliberative body to the world's most ineffective body.
Because it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, 41 senators can block virtually any bill. And, because Senate action on House bills is stymied as well, and confirmation of appointments to the executive branch and to the federal courts are too frequently blocked, all three branches of the government are unable to properly perform the people's business.
In virtually every other legislative or judicial body - whether it be the City Council in Waterloo, Ia., or the U.S. Supreme Court - the vote of a simple majority of the membership carries the day. Exceptions prove the rule: A super majority is required for Senate ratification of a treaty, for example, and a bond election in Iowa requires 60 percent voter approval. Otherwise, 50 percent plus one is sufficient.
The Senate as established in Article I of the U.S. Constitution was designed to make decisions with a simple vote of the majority, according to Yale constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar and former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart writing in the online magazine Slate. "Several of the Constitution's provisions prescribing super majorities make little sense unless we assume that majority rule was the self-evident default rule," they wrote. "Thus, Article I presupposed that each house would pass bills by majority vote - except when trying to override presidential vetoes, which would require a special super majority."
Both parties have been frustrated by the filibuster when each was blocked by the party in the minority. Senate Democrats are fuming about filibusters today, when they have a slight majority. Yet the shoe was on the other foot in 2005 when Democrats used the filibuster to block judicial appointments.
The Senate is a small and privileged body steeped in rich tradition. It is not likely to do away with two centuries of senatorial courtesy. The idea that any one of 100 senators is just as important as the other 99 is a powerful tradition. That tradition allows a senator to be heard, as long as he or she wants, to slow down the process and to have a contrary view fully aired. In the past, that tradition was the exception. Today it is the rule, and the Senate has been transformed from the world's greatest deliberative body to the world's most ineffective body.
