# What's the deal with filibustering? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 11, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707 "2003-11-11T23:19:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zardoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a8b319/32.png) [@Zardoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zardoz)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/1 "2003-11-11T23:19:14Z")
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? Ok, this has become a two-parter. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/2 "2003-11-11T23:26:46Z")
The filibuster will only kill the legislation if they can keep it up long enough and if they can get 40 senators to always vote against cloture. ---
**Author:** ![JohnW77707](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d2c977/32.png) [@JohnW77707](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnW77707)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/3 "2003-11-12T00:23:41Z")
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. JohnW77707 ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/4 "2003-11-12T00:24:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/5 "2003-11-12T01:49:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/6 "2003-11-12T02:23:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zardoz \* > \*\*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. \*\* 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. In other words, bills don’t get killed. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/7 "2003-11-12T02:27:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zardoz \* > I just saw on FAUX News that the Democrats in the Senate will be filibustering an upcoming piece of legislation, thereby killing it. Nah, tonight’s the republican “reverse filibuster” over a couple of court nominees. > [@](#): > > Republicans hope the all-night Senate session – the first to go past 4 a.m. since 1992 – will swing public favor and maybe some campaign cash their way during the winter break. Conservatives have complained the GOP hasn’t done enough to highlight the Democrats’ blockades. > Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., called the talkathon a “reverse filibuster.” [Senate Prepares for 30-Hour Talkfest](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102813,00.html). The Washington Post has a nice [article on the event:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14075-2003Nov7.html) > [@](#): > > Senate Republican leaders have decided to dramatize the fight with the next best thing: a 30-to-40-hour debate that will test the patience of the most hardcore C-SPAN watchers. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has suggested that the chamber be divided into snoring and non-snoring sections. Pretty amusing stuff, except that most of the budget bills haven’t been passed, and the energy bill is looking doubtful. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/8 "2003-11-12T02:29:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by moriah \* > \*\*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.\*\* A little terminological clarity may help here. 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](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section5). 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_](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738203076/cm_aya_asin.img/103-4840475-9426225?v=glance&s=books). _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](http://clerkkids.house.gov/learn_center/househis/bios/adams.php) 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. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/9 "2003-11-12T15:45:39Z")
Squink I was reading that as well. Can anyone explain this to me? > [@](#): > > While no one expects the marathon to break the logjam on the nominees, the potential for trickery is there. > > The two sides plan to split the 30 hours and trade shifts so that there will be a senator from each party on the floor at all times. For example, a Republican will talk from 3 a.m. to 3:30 a.m., while a Democrat watches. They’ll switch roles for the next 30 minutes and then head home to bed, replaced by two others for the next shift. Specifically… > [@](#): > > Because Senate rules require agreement from both sides to quickly confirm a nominee, the GOP can’t force a confirmation vote as long as a Democrat is present on the floor to object. But if they fall asleep or stop paying attention, Santorum said, the GOP will immediately confirm the nominees. 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. > [@](#): > > “They’re forewarned: If the floor is not protected, the vote will be” called, Santorum said. “We are going to do everything we can to do what they’re doing, ratcheting up the intensity on this issue.” I guess the same question applies to this… > [@](#): > > In turn, Daschle said, if Republicans stop paying attention, they will immediately pass Democratic legislation like a bill to raise the minimum wage (search) or one to create a tax credit to stimulate creation of manufacturing jobs. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/10 "2003-11-12T15:55:04Z")
Why can it only be used (effectively) with a large minority? ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/11 "2003-11-12T15:58:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KidCharlemagne \* > \*\*Why can it only be used (effectively) with a large minority? \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/12 "2003-11-12T16:24:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dutchboy208 \* > \*\* 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. > … > In other words, bills don’t get killed. \*\* 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](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3224575.stm) 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. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/13 "2003-11-12T16:53:16Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![quasar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@quasar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quasar)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/14 "2003-11-15T16:34:06Z")
Excellent post, **brianmelendez]**. Quite enlightening! Two questions, if you don’t mind: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brianmelendez \* > \*\*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. \*\* 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). > [@](#): > > 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 abuses may buy order at too high a price. Out of curiosity, what would be that price? Cheers, quasar ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/15 "2003-11-15T18:19:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quasar \* > **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)](http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm): > [@](#): > > 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: > > “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?” And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn – except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting – then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. > > Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o’clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion if an amendment in the first degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate. > > After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote begins. The thirty hours may be increased by the adoption of a motion, decided without debate, by a threefifths affirmative vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus agreed upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. However, only one motion to extend time, specified above, may be made in any one calendar day. > > If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in order and may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the amendment’s sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited to lineation and pagination. > [@](#): > > **Out of curiosity, what would be that price?** 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. ---
**Author:** ![terd\_ferguson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@terd\_ferguson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terd_ferguson)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/16 "2003-11-15T18:36:46Z")
Just a bit of trivia… 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. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/17 "2003-11-15T19:07:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brianmelendez \* > **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.** Oops – the vote doesn’t occur on the next day, it occurs on the second day after the petition is filed. Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![quasar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@quasar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quasar)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/18 "2003-11-15T22:02:51Z")
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. 😉 Cheers and thanks, quasar ---
**Author:** ![lord\_vykor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e495f1/32.png) [@lord\_vykor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lord_vykor)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/19 "2003-11-15T22:54:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-deal-with-filibustering/212707/20 "2003-11-15T23:24:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lord\_vykor \* > \*\*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](http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule06.htm), 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.