In our family when there were important decisions to be made, such as where to eat or what movie to see (very infrequent events in those days), we were told "the majority rules." I expect that the average citizen thinks that Congress does and should act in the same fashion. As early as grade school we had a pretty fair understanding that except when it came to overriding a presidential veto, the House and Senate operated under majority rule. Later in our education, we learned that a supermajority was also required in the Senate in respect to impeachment, treaties, expulsion of members and proposing constitutional amendments, and more recently when there is need for an acting president.
But we hear every day, to the undoubted surprise of many, that health care reform, which according to polls is wanted by a supermajority of the country, requires a supermajority in the Senate. A simple majority just won't do it. Why is that and is it a good or bad thing for the country? The Constitution provides the circumstances under which more than a majority is required, and this type of legislation is definitely not on the list. Furthermore, the Constitution provides that the Vice-President can break a tie--clearly indicating an intention by the Founders that a majority should decide matters in the Senate except in those specific instances enumerated in the Constitution.
But strangely enough, the requirement for a supermajority comes indirectly from the Constitution itself, which permits each chamber to fix its own procedural rules. The Senate now has a rule which can close debate by a three-fifths vote of all Senators or 60 votes. The rule and its predecessors sprung from the principle that absent a cloture rule, a senator could speak indefinitely--filibuster in order to defeat legislation.
If a judge declares a statute invalid, conservatives frequently complain that such judges are "liberal activists, thwarting the will of the majority," but "thwarting" apparently is in the eyes of the beholder. Under the current rule, as in the case of health care, a minority can thwart the will of the majority, even a majority of 59%--both in the country and the Senate (although the percentage in the nation favoring such legislation may be even higher). Any political party that wishes to change this rule in order to permit the adoption of particular legislation or confirmation of a particular nominee by a majority vote has to bear in mind that one day it will be in the minority and might very well regret the unavailability of this obstructionist weapon.
But how does the country fare in all of this? For a long time in the history of this country the majority favored, or at least accepted, slavery and segregation. So the majority is not always right or on the right side. On the other hand, this power wielded by a minority can bring all significant legislation to a halt. The courts are there to check the majority when it exceeds the limits prescribed by the Constitution. But what of those instances in which the majority seeks to enact constitutional legislation which a formidable, organized minority opposes? Does the Senate rule impede or further our democracy?
In my view a supermajority should not be required to bring matters to the floor for debate. But when it comes to adopting legislation or confirming a nominee, I am uncertain and ambivalent. In view of that uncertainty and ambivalence, I look forward to your comments. I leave you with these two profound but conflicting quotes:
"A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people." --Abraham Lincoln
"It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which the masses of men exhibit their tyranny." --James Fenimore Cooper
Now that Democrats are the majority, Republicans love to (ab)use the filibuster to delay, obstruct or kill legislation. To overcome the filibuster requires 60-votes just to get the bill to the floor for a procedural up or down vote which needs 51-votes to pass.
Even after 1965 when new rules allowing periodic votes on cloture motions, instead of the 24/7 sessions, and later reducing the 2/3 required for cloture to 60 votes the filibuster was rarely used. 1970s the average was less than 2 times a month; 1990s average: 3 times a month. By 1993 the average jumped to 20. By the end of the 110 th Congress first term, the number of Republican filibusters exceeded 60.
The filibuster was never meant to be used as a partisan political tool to stymie the process.
Abolishing the filibuster is 1-option. However, reconstructing the rules in a way, if possible, that would remedy the situation is much more preferable than resorting to the "nuclear option."
Rule 22 was the tool which allowed Civil Right Legislation go forward. The fact that it was necessary to block filibusters by Southern Senators who tried to block anti lynching laws is pretty shameful. In 1975 the two third majorities was reduced to three fifths. (60 out of 100 Senators).
If we are to just go on the morals and beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and not think for ourselves, the voice of one Senator will continue to be enough to stop Legislation necessary to ensure the basic Welfare of the people, the one thing needed to enjoy the Blessing of Liberty. I can cite quotes from all the Founding Fathers on their intent to have One sane man stop catastrophe. But I don’t think they could imagine the world we live in today, all the different voices, and the checks and balances still in place to guarantee Democracy.
It’s time to ascend beyond 1774, we are the same Nation, but in a different Society. The United States must grow up and stop trying to define everything with the eyes of men who live in posterity. They were great men, but it’s time to be Greater.
We are supposed to have a republic that operates on a democratic basis. If that is the case, then elections have to mean something. When a party gains majorities in both houses of Congress, then that means they have a mandate to advance their agenda. If it meets constitutional requirements, then it should not be obstructed by a recalcitrant minority. A further problem is that a super-majority enables powerful interests to buy off a handful of senators to contribute to that obstruction. This results in the people becoming disillusioned and as a consequence the government looses authority and legitimacy.
Obstruction is the greatest barrier to real reform.
If we want to attack the plutocracy, we won't have the luxury of 60 votes to do it with--Congress is far too corrupt.
Far better to give the GOP the ability to pass laws or kill existing legislation with 51 votes than to require progressives to muster 60 votes to get anything done.
The People are more likely to hold the GOP accountable for destroying a valuable program or for passing a bad law than they are to hold it accountable for obstructing needed reform.
This has been the country of No You Can't for too long.
Yes We Can, in spite of Obama, Baucus, and all the other Centrists!
If the Centrists refuse to drop the cloture rule, then we must force them out in the primaries.
I recognize this quote is not really about majority rule, but it does accurately reflect the basic problem which we now face. Because the question: when a supermajority is required Was chewed on the last eight years when GOP Members of Congress rammed Legislation thru for which we are still paying. A normal majority was Fine when they were the Leaders of the House &Senate, by their standard it Should be fine now.
In my opinion, only Legislation asking for declaration of War should require a supermajority.
The fact that we have to debate this question is because many Congressman/woman are either bought by Lobbyist and Corporations, & Or corrupted by ideals for which the welfare of common person is no longer Significant.
Time for another quote: John F. Kennedy: The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
This is what we are faced with, The GOP & the fringe element to which they are kowtowing know what the truth is, &don’t care, and are willing to destroy the common good to get their desires.
The trap for the GOP is that they think they will be able to control that fringe, but history & even current events prove that contention false.
1. The Republicans threatened to do away with the 60 vote rule because the Democrats wouldn't allow an up or down vote on their judicial nominations. The result was the Democrats gave ground and allowed some judges to be seated rather than lose the rule while the Republicans were in power. So the rules were changed by the Republicans and the party in power may do away with the 60 vote rule when they want to get something done.
2. It's just a Senate rule that can be done away with by either party when they're in power. Sooner or later, it will be done away with. If Health Care Reform that will save a good portion of 45,000 American lives a year isn't the right time, when is it?
3. Bush Jr. pushed through his tax cuts with a simple majority. Those tax cuts have cost trillions in government debt. Why hold up health care for a rule that can be circumvented to fit the Republican agenda even when it may bankrupt America?
I must digest your words and the two quotes before I give my humble opinion on the subject at hand.
How can it be that one senator can block a nomination or a bill anonymously by putting a hold on it? That seems ridiculous, but it is there.
How can Senators adn Congressmen be allowed to accept bushels of cash contributions from special interest groups and corporations when doing so creates a clear criminal conflict of interest?
Such a practice ought be banned and the violators expelled from their respective houses.
Yet the lobbyists continue to call with bags full of money and the legislators show up to play The Price is Right.
When Your Honor strikes down a law or overturns a conviction or sets aside a verdict, he must cite the appropriate law and legal precedent. When conservatives react by spewing their name calling, they have nothing to back them up.
A clear review in the sun of all the rules governing Congress is in order so that the most onerous of these can be expunged and these legisltors can return to doing the work of the people that elected them.
The elite are trying to take our whole country down. We all know it, but how can we stop it? They've got control of everything.
Phoeey on Reid for giving away the store.
Things have to change fast. I don't even recognize my own country anymore. At least I know Dennis reads the bills. Now that I know most reps and the executive branch do not bother reading them, the system is dead.
These mean, homely, greedy people are not looking out for us. Ralph Nader never stopped looking out for us. Dr. Kevorkian knew death with dignity & is the only one I trust with that.
These myths are true. I know from experience. And I can tell you alot more & alot worse. Pass any bill one small bill at a time from now on. End lobbying. Break up all monopolies today!
Pelosi took Impeachment off the table. Now she needs to be taken out of the house, and an honewst man put in.
Wake up! Look what this mummy is doing to us!