The
tradition of unlimited debate in the U.S. Senate, while not a Constitutional
provision, is based on a Senate rule that goes back over a century. It is only the unwieldy size of the U.S.
House of Representatives (435 members) that made such a tradition
impossible. Until just recently, the
rule reflected the basic governing philosophy of the creators of the Constitution, which
was divided government, checks and balances and the avoidance of concentrations
of power.
The
filibuster, which was the embodiment of unlimited debate in the Senate, certainly has been
abused by both political parties depending on which party was in the majority
in the Senate. Suggestions to change the
rule however, have been opposed in the past by prominent politicians of both
parties i.e. former Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and, current Majority Leader
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). Now, Senator
Reid, with the support of the thin Democrat majority in the Senate and the
concurrence of President Obama, has changed the rule to do away with the filibuster
by changing the requirement for ending debate (“cloture”) from sixty votes to
fifty-one, a simple majority.
This was
brought on by the fact that the Democrats did not have the necessary 60 votes
and the Republican minority was not cooperating with respect to the President’s
choices of Cabinet secretaries and federal judges. The Constitution does not demand acquiescence
by the Senate in such nominations. It
specifically requires the “advise and consent” of the Senate to approve those
choices. If the Senate is expected to
automatically approve the President’s nominations then the “advise and consent”
provision of the Constitution has no meaning.
That of course, was clearly understood though most of U.S. history until
now.
Defenders of
Senator Reid’s initiative reside totally in the liberal wing of the Democrat
Party. They argue that a simple majority is a manifestation of “true democracy”
i.e. majority rule. This is the basis of the parliamentary system of government
in which the leader of the majority party in the lower legislative body is
always the chief executive (Prime Minister).
Thus this is a system of one party rule which America’s “founders”
rejected, unless provided by elections to both houses and the presidency.
Although it has occurred occasionally through U.S. history, it represented a
concentration of power which the various requirements for super majorities
off-set. The liberal “wing” actually makes up most of the Democrat Party who
support the President’s nomination of liberal judges for the federal courts,
especially three vacancies on the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit which hears most appeals involving the federal
government. This makes this court the
most important federal court after the Supreme Court. This also makes the importance of the now
defunct cloture rule of sixty votes compatible with the “framers” belief that
issues of great importance should require super-majorities, requiring a
significant portion of the minority which would then demonstrate a higher level
of consensus than just fifty percent plus one.
The
Constitution makes clear the importance of such a belief. The President, or his delegated
representative, may negotiate and sign treaties with foreign powers but the
Senate must ratify such treaties by a two thirds vote for them to become U.S.
law. The Constitution itself may be
amended but this highly important process requires a two thirds vote in both
houses of Congress and under the usual process, a three fourths concurrence by
states legislatures.
Impeachment
of federal officers, including the President and federal judges requires a two
thirds vote in the “trial” portion of the process which occurs in the
Senate. Confirmation of federal judges,
who serve for life, is also a matter of high importance and the super majority
of the previous cloture threshold was entirely appropriate.
What Senator
Reid and the Democrat majority has done is make an ideologically driven change
of an historic Senate rule for short term gain; short term because the Senate,
and the Presidency will not permanently remain in Democrat hands. The political pendulum will shift but the
nation’s political process will suffer in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment