It is often said that the House of Representatives favors the majority whereas the Senate favors the minority. The reason why this is true is because of the power to filibuster. Every senator is practically equal in power, so even one senator has the power to subvert legislation favored by the rest of the senators. This is also the reason why the filibuster will never truly go away. If the majority tries to change the rules to where senators do not have the freedom of unlimited debate, then any senator can even filibuster that motion. [1] In describing this power in the minority, political scientist Richard E. Fenno Jr. once said, “Every member of the Senate has an atomic bomb and can blow up the place. That leads to accommodation.” [2]
Before the reasons to filibuster are discussed, it would be wise to take a look at the Senate minority. When thinking of the minority in the Senate, one would typically think of the minority party. While this can often be the case, it can embody any like-minded senators from across the aisle as shown in the following video.
In the video, Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and Alfonse Marcello D’Amato (R-N.Y.) teamed up to filibuster for over fifteen hours in an effort to amend a tax bill to the current legislation that would hopefully prevent a typewriter company from moving eight hundred seventy-five jobs from Upstate New York to Mexico. The company wanted to do this in order to bring down wage costs. While Senator Moynihan doesn’t speak in this clip, it was important to point out that both senators were behind this tax bill amendment demonstrating a bipartisan minority.
There is a greater significance to a bipartisan minority. Some people believe that the prerogative of extended debate was to prevent change. This myth was perpetuated by the belief that this reflected the framers intent. [4] The constitution was created to be a living-document - or in other words ‘allowed to change’. It seems apparent that the actual intent of this prerogative was to further give voice to any minority regardless of party affiliation. The filibusters against the 1964 Civil Rights Act were led by Democrat and Republican senators from the South. [5] Also from the clip, both senators were from New York. Good or bad, unintended or fully-intended; the filibuster actually encourages bipartisanship and forces senators to reach across the aisle in order to ensure the passage of legislation.
Another interesting note about the video is that this filibuster was not intended to prevent the legislation from passing. It was employed in an effort to modify the legislation. Too often people think of a filibuster as simply stopping the passage of legislation like in Frank Capra’s 1939 classic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Some would argue that Senator D’Amato was trying to put on a show in order to win a tight reelection that year (which he did by ninety thousand votes compared to the six million cast) [3], but regardless if he had legitimate concern for the workers of the typewriter factory, the point is that the filibuster was not used to simply prevent passage. Even though the senator’s plan failed, it did serve a purpose by trying to highlight the issue in the public spotlight.
The most famous example of what people mostly believe a filibuster is used for is the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This act like every other measure faces the possibility of two filibusters: one on the motion to take up the legislation and the other on the consideration of the bill itself. [2] This act alone consumed sixteen days on the motion and a staggering fifty-seven days on the passage. The 1957 Civil Rights Bill was no different for Strom Thurmond’s (D-S.C.) filibuster lasted over twenty-four hours straight! Senator Thurmond like several other senators opposed the Civil Rights Acts because they believed it infringed on state’s rights. [5] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did eventually pass, but it had to be modified in order to get enough votes for a super majority. This event also demonstrates the extremes a minority may be willing to go in order to prevent passage; furthermore, this is why a threat of filibuster alone can halt legislation.
For the exception of the civil rights legislation before the 1970’s, the use of the filibuster was incredibly rare reserved only for issues of grave national importance. Recent decades have seen an increase in the overall number of filibusters and threat of filibusters from both sides of the political spectrum. The threat of a filibuster has even become a weekly occurrence and for as trivial reasons as a senator’s travel schedule. [2] This has been happening for several reasons. New senators tend to have an agenda of there own and with the increase of partisanship, this has only made the need for bipartisanship that much harder. Unlike the Civil Rights Act of 1967, a lot of issues aren’t that extremely important, and with the limited time that senators can afford, any indication of a filibuster can exercise significant leverage. Interestingly, political scientist Richard F. Fenno Jr. believes that these political entrepreneurs coupled with high media visibility are afraid to compromise and only have incentives to obstruct. Since obstruction is very easy to accomplish, if any senator doesn’t get their way, it is seemingly in their best interest to obstruct. In fact with party cohesiveness at an all time high, full-scale party-backed filibusters become even more of a threat. This is why - except for in some cases when a party commands a super-majority – bipartisanship is very important. Party leaders try “shuttle diplomacy” – which is diplomacy using an intermediary – between the two parties in order to avoid the possibility of a full-scale filibuster. [2]
References:
- Smith, Steven S., Roberts, Jason M., & Vander Wielen, Ryan J. (2009) The American Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press (pp. 45)
- Oleszek, Walter J. (2007) Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington D.C.: CQ Press (pp. 10, 238-240)
- The United State Senate. Old-time Filibuster Revived. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/old_time_filibuster_revived.htm
- Sinclair, Barbara. (2007) Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington D.C.: CQ Press (pp. 6)
- The United States Senate. Civil Rights Filibuster Ended. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment