At 43 days, the longest federal government shutdown was caused when Congress failed to pass appropriations legislation for the new fiscal year.
The Republican-controlled House proposed a continuing resolution, but it was repeatedly blocked in the Senate by Democratic senators, who could get away with it, despite being in the minority, because of the Senate’s filibuster rule.
The Democrat objection to the continuing resolution was that it did not include an extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, which were set to expire.
The enhanced subsidies to the Affordable Care Act were sold to the public, and enacted, as a temporary measure to deal with the Covid Pandemic. However, for some elements in Washington, nothing is more permanent than a “temporary” increase in taxing and spending. The current Democrat position on the enhanced subsidies for ACA is a prime example of that. They want the funding to continue even though the stated need is no longer applicable.
This latest use of the filibuster by the minority party in the Senate has generated calls by many to abolish the filibuster totally, or at least modify it. However, there are good arguments on both sides of this issue.
Before we delve into the pros and cons of continuing to allow the use of the filibuster by the Senate, it would be useful to take a quick look at the history of the filibuster.
Here is what the U. S. Senate website says regarding the origin of the filibuster.
The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” As the number of filibusters grew in the 19th century, the Senate had no formal process to allow a majority to end debate and force a vote on legislation or nominations.
The rules regarding filibuster have evolved over the years. Currently, it takes a vote by 60 senators to invoke cloture and end debate. This effectively requires controversial bills to have support by at least 60 senators in order to pass.
Three have been several changes to the filibuster rules. Here are three major ones
| Year | Change |
| 1789 | Filibuster first used in the Senate |
| 1917 | Cloture adopted, requiring a two-thirds majority vote (67 votes) to end a filibuster |
| 1975 | Cloture modified to require three-fifths of the Senate (60 votes) |
Source: Tag Vault
Repeated misuse and abuse of the filibuster have led many to support abolishing it. Here are some of the reasons given:
- It is extraconstitutional. There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution that enables the Senate to require a supermajority vote to pass bills.
- Undermines democracy and the will of the people. Senators were elected by a majority of voters to enact legislation supported by the majority. Requiring a super majority is antidemocratic.
- Gives less populated states undue power to prevent legislation supported by more densely populated states.
- Enables the minority party to carry out abuse and mischief.
Those who favor to continue to allow the Senate to conduct filibusters also have some good points.
- Support for the filibuster often shifts, depending on who is in the minority. Currently, most support comes from Democrats, but when Republicans were in the minority, they were very much in favor of using the filibuster. If abolished now, it can easily be reinstated by a simple majority.
- The filibuster guarantees that controversial bills do not pass with just a simple majority, which enables deeper scrutiny of those bills.
- Protects minority rights. This protection of minorities is at the heart of having a federal republic, not a democracy. The whole idea of a republican type of government is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
- Abuse of power is best addressed by holding perpetrators accountable, not by eliminating that power for everyone.
Undoubtedly there will be other incidents in the future that kindle the debate about the merits of the filibuster. It behooves citizens to study the facts carefully before supporting one course of action or the other.
Be the first to comment