I just saw on FAUX News that the Democrats in the Senate will be filibustering an upcoming piece of legislation, thereby killing it. Why is filibustering important in Congress? Seems like a complete waste of time.
Do other governments have this kind of system? Britian, for example. How does one political party “kill” a piece of legislation. BTW, as an American, I LOVE watching British Parliament proceedings. If only our stodgy Congress would let fly with a rowdy, Jerry Springer-style forum. And what’s that book that Tony Blair has to keep in his lap and then bring to the podium? Chicken Soup for the Soul?
Think of the filibuster as the “mulligan” or last-resort of legislating. (Not the best analogy). The minority (as long as they are 40/41 or more) get to block legislation, but usually at a political cost in the public eye. It’s similar to the Presidential Veto – it’s a last-resort way to prevent legislation from passing, but it implicitly admits that you know that you can’t win a straight vote.
A filibuster only occurs in the Senate, not in both houses of Congress. The Senate’s rules permit untimes debates on legislation, meaning you can talk as long as you want. Traditionally, filibusters were used as a last stand against legislation that a minority did not want passed. A speaker, or team of speakers, would talk continuously, often simply reading from cookbooks and whatnot, until the other side gave up. This only works so long as you have an orator willing to talk for hours without yielding the floor, going to the bathroom, sitting down, etc. Nowadays, Senate rules permit a cloture vote, requiring 60 votes, to end a filibuster. Thus, the actual filibusters are rare these days, having been replaced with the threat of a filibuster: e.g., “we’re going to filibuster and we have 42 people on our side, so you can’t get a cloture vote.”
As for it being a “complete waste of time,” that’s the entire point. It’s a strategic move for a significant minority to exert some control.
Also note: A filibuster is not usually part of Robert’s Rules of Paliamentary Procedure, although, any body can adopt filibuster rules into their by-laws, which the Senate has done.
They did this so that a narrow majority can’t force legislation on a large minority. There are other types of parliamentary procedures which require a ‘super majority,’ i.e., two-thirds or three-fourths of the members in order to pass a weighty motion, so the filibuster isn’t that unusual in that regard.
The Republicans have floated the idea that they’ll get around the filibuster by changing the by-laws to do away with filibusters, or, simply to use their majority to back up the chair overruling the filibuster. But, they’ve been threatening that for a year now – unlikely to happen because of the bad blood (yes, even more so than it is now) such a move will cause. The Republicans know what it’s like to be in the minority and are aware they may one day be there again, and if that time comes, they will surely want to use the filibuster for their own agenda.
Peace.
To form a government, a party (almost always) needs an absolute majority in the UK Parliament. Also, MPs don’t break ranks when in comes to voting like Congressmen do.
If the government is introducing a significant piece of legislation and MPs from its own party vote against it, chances are the entire cabinet (and the PM with them) will resign.
First, the Senate operates under rules, not bylaws. The Senate adopts its rules under the constitutional provision that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 5.
Second, I have never heard of any deliberative assembly “adopt[ing] filibuster rules into their by-laws.” (I am a professional parliamentarian.) The filibuster is possible not because any rule allows it, but because no rule prohibits it – that is, debate in the Senate is unlimited, unlike in most other deliberative assemblies. More on that topic in a minute.
Third, the statement that “a filibuster is not usually part of Robert’s Rules of Paliamentary Procedure” is not wrong, but it is a little off. The parliamentary manual’s title is Robert’s Rules of Order or, in its current edition, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. Robert’s is a parliamentary manual originally written by Henry M. Robert (1837–1923). The manual went through three editions under its original title, three more editions (beginning 1915) under the title Robert’s Rules of Order Revised, and its latest editions (beginning 1970) under the title Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. It is the best-selling and most commonly adopted parliamentary manual in the United States. But there are dozens of other parliamentary manuals on the market as well. Every manual that I am familiar with sets some default limit on debate – for example, Robert’s allows two speeches of up to ten minutes each per member per question. Thus, no manual in common use in the United States today allows unlimited debate, which is a prerequisite for a filibuster.
Now, as to unlimited debate:
The Senate rules allow debate that is both unlimited in time and unlimited in topic – that is, there is no requirement that a speech be germane to the topic under consideration, as there is in most deliberative assemblies. There are at least two supporting policy considerations:
First, the presiding officer (whose ruling a majority would presumably support) cannot muzzle a lone senator by ruling him or her out of order because his or her speech is not germane, any more than the presiding officer can rule the senator out of order because the speech is taking too long. A senator is the only judge of what he or she will talk about, and how long he or she will talk about it.
Second, because the rules allow debate on any topic at any time, the Senate leadership cannot confine particular topics to certain inconvenient times. A senator can harp on a theme as often as he or she wants, whenever he or she has the floor – just as the Roman senator Cato the Elder ended every speech, on whatever topic, with his plea that “Carthage must be destroyed!” (a policy to which he ultimately persuaded the Roman Senate). The majority thereby cannot avoid an unpleasant topic – as the House of Representatives did when it adopted the gag rule that prevented the House from hearing any antislavery petition throughout four Congresses.
Certainly the rules that allow unlimited debate, like most rules, are subject to abuse. But getting rid of the rules in order to curtail the absuses may buy order at too high a price.
If the other guy falls asleep they can pass legislation? I thought it required agreement from both sides? Wouldn’t he have to be awake to agree? Or it’s assumed the other side agrees unless they object, in which case the above would make sense.
Because a small minority can’t block a petition for cloture, which requires three-fifth of the senators in order to end a filibuster. Forty-one senators can block a petition for cloture. A smaller number cannot.
I’m afraid they do. It frequently happens to private member bills, i.e. legislation that a single MP proposes without the backing of the government and all MPs are free to vote on as they wish. Strictly limited time are allocated for them and all it takes is a few MPs to oppose it by filibustering to kill the bill.
It also happens in the House Of Lords, where the government may not have the same majority. However, this usually can only delay the bill, not kill it. But it has proven to be successful if the government hasn’t time to repeat the process before losing the next election.
An excellent example of this happened just recently with proposed legislation on fox-hunting in England, something close to the heart of many idle English Lords. Whether they have any business wielding such power is something that infuriates many.
The US Senate is indeed the epicenter for hot air, and it’s pretty much a requirement to be able to speak without saying much in order to be in the club. The filibuster is just an extension of that.
The Southern Democrats(remember them?) elavated the filibuster to an art form for more than a century to block any meaningful civil rights legislation.
Not so long ago it took a 2/3 majority to cut off a filibuster, which was next to impossible to get, unless the subject was raising their own salary.
Excellent post, brianmelendez]. Quite enlightening! Two questions, if you don’t mind:
Who is in charge of determining what can be construed as filibustering? I imagine there most be an ultimate authority ruling on this; otherwise, empty petitions for cloture, devoid of any substance, may be filed continuously. (Yeah, I know it should be clear to all parties present when a filibustering attemp is taking place but, still, for order’s sake, these attempts should be defined as so by an empowered individual / entity, rather than general perception).
I don’t know if there is any objective or universally recognized standard for when a speech becomes a filibuster. But “filibuster” is merely a popular term: it is unknown to the Senate rules. A petition for cloture can be filed at any time with respect to any pending motion, as long as 16 senators sign on. Theoretically, a petition for cloture can be filed with respect to a question that has been under consideration for only a few minutes.
The limit on “empty petitions for cloture” is that a petition does not result in an immediate vote on cloture – the vote occurs on the next day. Thus, if the petition succeeds, then the filibuster is over and the one-hour-per-speech rule takes effect. And if the petition fails, then another vote does not occur until the next day, until which time the filibuster continues.
For convenient reference, here is the applicable provision, Senate Rule 22(2):
The Senate has always billed itself as “the world’s greatest deliberative body” because even the most junior senator has a platform from which he or she can speak on any subject for an unlimited time, and the Senate must hear him or her out. While that right is obviously subject to abuse, it can also be a powerful check upon the executive branch and the majority party. After all, don’t you remember the climactic scene in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where the beleaguered Senator Smith, alone and near collapse, holds the floor until he exposes the corrupt political machine that has been controlling his state and the Senate?
The price of doing away with the filibuster is sacrificing a two-century-old tradition of unlimited debate. Doing away with the filibuster would let the majority party, or the presiding officer, silence a senator who was expressing an unpopular view.
The record for longest filibuster, which lasted for 24 hours and 18 minutes, is held by Strom Thurmond who unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
Thanks, brianmelendez, for such an informative response. You have helped me live up to the mantra I invoke every time upon waking up: Learn something new every day.
On a tangent, I abstained from reading the 5 or so lines following the mention of Mr. Smith goes to Washington out of fear of having it spoiled. Your post reminded me that I have been planning on renting it for a while. I shall watch it tonight.
They’re referring to the unanimous consent agreement, where a senator asks for unanimous consent that the bill be passed. The chair will then inquire as whether there are any objections from the floor. if no objections are heard, then unanimous consent is assumed and the bill passes.
So if the other side’s senator falls asleep, then the unanimous consent would go through because no objections are heard.
Although, doesn’t the passage of a bill still require a quorum present? If there’s only a few senators in chambers, isn’t there a lack of quorum issue?
Theoretically, yes. But the Senate – like many organizations – presumes that a quorum, once established, is present until the chair or a member formally “notices” otherwise. Under Senate Rule 6, any senator may at any time suggest the absence of a quorum, resulting in a quorum call. But without a quorum call, the Senate proceeds with its business as if a quorum is present, even if a quorum is clearly absent. That practice lets most senators out of its daily sessions while their delegates – usually one from each political party – listen to statements being read into the record and handle other routine business on the floor. But if the minority party falls asleep at the switch, then the majority party – consisting perhaps of only the presiding officer and one senator – can overlook the absence of a quorum and transact business by unanimous consent, which is just as valid as if a quorum were actually present.
