NationStates Jolt Archive

So, with the so called "nuclear option" bring brought up again in the senate (this option, the removal of the filibuster, seems to come up just about every time the senate changes hands for long), a key question is raised. Is the senate designed to protect the rights of the minority and prevent a dictatorship of the majority or merely a rubber stamp to the will of the majority like the House.

My own personal opinion is that the Senate is clearly designed to protect the minority, not only through its peculiar rules but also in the design of the senate itself, in that each state has only two seats, irregardless of population.



However, your thoughts?

It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about protecting a minority.

In seven instances, the Constitution requires the use of supermajority rules by one or both houses of Congress. But the filibuster rule is not among them.

For instance, the Constitution requires a 2/3 supermajority of each House to override a Presidential veto of legislation. In addition, it requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict and remove an officer of the United States who has been impeached by the House (as many will remember from President Bill Clinton's impeachment).

In short, some suggest, ordinary majority rule is the Constitution's baseline, and the Constitution is careful and explicit in detailing the situations in which supermajorities are required. Thus, the Constitution's drafters plainly knew how to impose a supermajority rule when they wanted to. They didn't, however, impose the supermajority requirement for ending debate in the Senate.

Therein lies the primary argument against the constitutionality of the filibuster: In failing to expressly include the Senate cloture rule, the Constitution implicitly excludes it. (The Latin term for this interpretive rule is expressio unius est exclusio alterius.) The Constitution, on this reading, gives an exhaustive, exclusive list of all supermajority rules that can be applied in the House or Senate.

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

The call for cloture falls under section 5, the rules of the proceedings. Cloture requires a 2/3rds vote, as established under section 5.

Now I assume next you're going to bring up the advice and consent clause.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The constitution does not say what constitutes advice and consent, however, Congress (again under section 5) has determined that to mean that it is subject to the cloture rule. Claiming that this clause somehow means that they must have an up or down vote is spurious, as it says nothing of the sort. Mearly that advise and consent must be given. Congress has chosen to give its consent through the normal process, through the cloture rules, and is not unconstitutional.

However, back to the point, the Senate does seem to be constructed to help protect the minority.

The Seante is made to further the intrests of the American people. Stamping out the filibuster would just make it easier for the majority to pass laws restricitng the minority.

The Seante is made to further the intrests of the American people. Stamping out the filibuster would just make it easier for the majority to pass laws restricitng the minority.

...thus furthering the interests of the people. :D

well, most of them anyway.

...thus furthering the interests of the people. :D

well, most of them anyway.
Well, if we are to take the demographics seriously, the senate/house is heavily and unfairly weighted towards the Republicans at the moment.


(More people voted for Democrats in the senate then Republicans)

However, back to the point, the Senate does seem to be constructed to help protect the minority.

I fail to see that. The instances where a supermajority is required are all identified. The filibuster is arguably unconstitutional.

I fail to see that. The instances where a supermajority is required are all identified. The filibuster is arguably unconstitutional.
How so? Please do tell.

Did you fail to see the first part of my statement?

"The call for cloture falls under section 5, the rules of the proceedings. Cloture requires a 2/3rds vote, as established under section 5."

Well, if we are to take the demographics seriously, the senate/house is heavily and unfairly weighted towards the Republicans at the moment.


(More people voted for Democrats in the senate then Republicans)

How's that?

(link?)

How so? Please do tell.

Did you fail to see the first part of my statement?

"The call for cloture falls under section 5, the rules of the proceedings. Cloture requires a 2/3rds vote, as established under section 5."
It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about protecting a minority.

In seven instances, the Constitution requires the use of supermajority rules by one or both houses of Congress. But the filibuster rule is not among them.

For instance, the Constitution requires a 2/3 supermajority of each House to override a Presidential veto of legislation. In addition, it requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict and remove an officer of the United States who has been impeached by the House (as many will remember from President Bill Clinton's impeachment).

In short, some suggest, ordinary majority rule is the Constitution's baseline, and the Constitution is careful and explicit in detailing the situations in which supermajorities are required. Thus, the Constitution's drafters plainly knew how to impose a supermajority rule when they wanted to. They didn't, however, impose the supermajority requirement for ending debate in the Senate.

Therein lies the primary argument against the constitutionality of the filibuster: In failing to expressly include the Senate cloture rule, the Constitution implicitly excludes it. (The Latin term for this interpretive rule is expressio unius est exclusio alterius.) The Constitution, on this reading, gives an exhaustive, exclusive list of all supermajority rules that can be applied in the House or Senate.

You're talking about Senate Rule XXII, not the Constitution.

How's that?

(link?)
http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200511#1598

It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about protecting a minority.

In seven instances, the Constitution requires the use of supermajority rules by one or both houses of Congress. But the filibuster rule is not among them.

For instance, the Constitution requires a 2/3 supermajority of each House to override a Presidential veto of legislation. In addition, it requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict and remove an officer of the United States who has been impeached by the House (as many will remember from President Bill Clinton's impeachment).

In short, some suggest, ordinary majority rule is the Constitution's baseline, and the Constitution is careful and explicit in detailing the situations in which supermajorities are required. Thus, the Constitution's drafters plainly knew how to impose a supermajority rule when they wanted to. They didn't, however, impose the supermajority requirement for ending debate in the Senate.

Therein lies the primary argument against the constitutionality of the filibuster: In failing to expressly include the Senate cloture rule, the Constitution implicitly excludes it. (The Latin term for this interpretive rule is expressio unius est exclusio alterius.) The Constitution, on this reading, gives an exhaustive, exclusive list of all supermajority rules that can be applied in the House or Senate.

You're talking about Senate Rule XXII, not the Constitution.

No, I'm talking about article 1, section 5. That clause gives the senate the ability to do whatever it wants, knocking down the 'expression unius est exclusio alterius' rule, as they can add whatever they like to the voting process. It does not say a bill must reach cloture in order to be voted upon, but the senate has rules in place to make each bill reach that barrier.

My own personal opinion is that the Senate is clearly designed to protect the minority, not only through its peculiar rules but also in the design of the senate itself, in that each state has only two seats, irregardless of population.
It doesn't say anything in the Constitution about protecting a minority.
Wow, how interesting that your opinions on this matter line up for the convenience of the parties you both respectively support!

The Seante is made to further the intrests of the American people. Stamping out the filibuster would just make it easier for the majority to pass laws restricitng the minority.
Shouldn't the House be for that? Remember, the Senate was originally a representation of states, not people. Direct voting for senators only started is 1913 (?).

Wow, how interesting that your opinions on this matter line up for the convenience of the parties you both respectively support!

I would say that even if the Democrats were in the majority.

Wow, how interesting that your opinions on this matter line up for the convenience of the parties you both respectively support!
Nah, I wasn't for when we tried to get rid of the rule either. Not worth it. Besides, it stops complete idiots from getting into the courts normally and prevents really bad bad bad laws from getting in.

Constututions are all about protecting minorities. That's the whole point.

And I thought the Senate was allowed to decide its own procedural rules. Anybody, on whatever side of the political spectrum should realise that the fillibuster is a good thing(tm).

What confuses me most of all about this whole "we want to get rid of the fillibuster" ordeal is that over 200 judicial appointments have already passed. 10 have been blocked. That's like 5%. Hardly seems like the fillibuster is being abused - actually it is being used as it should be used, to stop the extreme of whatever the majority wants.

I would say that even if the Democrats were in the majority.
Nah, I wasn't for when we tried to get rid of the rule either. Not worth it.
It's OK, guys. I expected you to say this.

It's OK, guys. I expected you to say this.
<3.

The filibuster is another example of the checks and balances implented into the Constitution so that no one House of Congress, branch of government, or political party has control over everything and can become an unofficial dictatorship.

A simple solution. Pick a judge, any judge. Have a debate on that judge and keep extending it until about 24 hours has gone by. At this point, having proven that the dummicrats have no interest in debating the actual merits of said judges, invoke the nuclear option. Problem solved.

The filibuster is another example of the checks and balances implented into the Constitution so that no one House of Congress, branch of government, or political party has control over everything and can become an unofficial dictatorship.
It's a rule, not part of the Constitution. A Senate rule.

Please.

The filibuster is another example of the checks and balances implented into the Constitution so that no one House of Congress, branch of government, or political party has control over everything and can become an unofficial dictatorship.
The filibuster was also never meant to be used against judicial nominations. You also had to actually keep talking round the clock to keep the filibuster going.

A simple solution. Pick a judge, any judge. Have a debate on that judge and keep extending it until about 24 hours has gone by. At this point, having proven that the dummicrats have no interest in debating the actual merits of said judges, invoke the nuclear option. Problem solved.
Until all hell breaks loose and the senate beings to come to a halt.

http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200511#1598

You'll have to do better than that.... it's hardly an unbiased source, now is it? ;)

You'll have to do better than that.... it's hardly an unbiased source, now is it? ;)
If you dispute the numbers, add them up yourself. The numbers are sourced.

Another one.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/10/161057/48

If you dispute the numbers, add them up yourself. The numbers are sourced.

Another one.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/10/161057/48

I'm still confused why this matters as it's 2 senators per state, which PROTECTS minorities (ie: people from Wyoming, South Carolina) from the tyranny of the majority (California, New York) in the first place!

That's why the Senate isn't the House. :D