If the U.S. Senate majority today sought to pass a publicly-funded health-care system or repeal tax cuts for the wealthy, a minority of senators could still block said efforts. In fact, they probably would exploit their power of the filibuster.
So what can we do? Make a federal case out of it?
Absolutely. The idea is not mine. Credit Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. He suggested just that as he vainly appealed to his Senate colleagues on Thursday, Jan. 27, to vote for up to three resolutions as part of a package to curb the filibuster.
The Senate took some limited steps Thursday to improve its procedures, but fell far short of what it should have done.
To compensate, Harkin said, “We must now have to look at the courts to find some relief in this matter…I quite frankly think a case can be made to the courts.”
The Constitution authorizes the Senate to formulate its own rules, but any American should feel violated if they support the policies of the Senate majority. In fact, the current majority represents 190 million Americans, nearly two-thirds of the population, because each state is represented by two senators; the least and most populous states have the same amount of clout.
Any senator can filibuster, or threaten to filibuster, proposed legislation without taking to the floor to make their case, as James Stewart did in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The Senate needs 60 votes to end a filibuster, not a plain majority of 51 votes. The process is called cloture.
The Senate majority was prevented from approving any kind of government-run health-care - which was referred to as the public option - and the abolition of tax cuts for the rich because of the 60-vote bar.
All five resolutions to alter the rules had to receive 67 votes, two-thirds of the Senate membership. Harkin especially protested this 67-vote barrier.
If this or any other element of Senate rules can make for a legal
challenge, then by all means let’s hope someone goes for it.
The most consequential outcome was not even subject to a vote. The Senate leadership reached an informal agreement. Democrats will allow Republican senators to submit nearly all the amendments they want, and Republicans will limit their use of the filibuster.
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, quoted in The Oregonian, said, “There is nothing that touches the impact of the filibuster on amendments and nothing that touches the impact on bills, so we still may see the same obstruction we’ve seen before.”
Merkley, Harkin and Tom Udall of New Mexico comprised the
driving force behind a resolution to require that all senators who
invoke the filibuster must address the legislation on the floor.
Most Democrats voted for the measure, but it could neither get past
the 67-vote barrier nor even a majority vote.
Harkin quixotically introduced a bill permitting a majority to end cloture which was rejected by a 12-84 vote.
“The framers were very clear about where a supermajority can be used,” Harkin told his colleagues during the debate, televised on C-span. “The first Senate allowed the majority to bring it (legislation) to a vote…We have to be able to react a little faster than we did in the 19th century…We cannot govern a superpower when a minority can dictate…”
Harkin pointed out that the filibuster was established after Vice President Aaron Burr pointed out that the majority party in the Senate would not permit the minority party to debate legislation. However, the Republicans have abused the use of the filibuster during the last four years under Democratic control.
“The power is not what we can do but what we can stop,” he said. “What I fear is that this Senate will continue to be dysfunctional…The American people will get more frustrated.”
Harkin’s bill was co-sponsored by Richard J. Durbin of Illinois;
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland; and Jeanne Shaheen, New
Hampshire. Also voting for the measure were Udall, Mark Begich,
Alaska; Richard Blumenthal and Joseph I. Lieberman, both of
Connecticut; Kirsten E. Gillibrand, New York; John F. Kerry,
Massachusetts; Herb Kohl, Wisconsin; and Frank R. Lautenberg,
New Jersey.
However, the Senate overwhelmingly passed two bills to forbid
any senator from placing an anonymous hold to block a bill or a
nomination and to read lengthy amendments, which has been
employed as a stalling tactic.
What a giant step forward. Why were senators allowed to do this in
the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment