In just about every country's government, there is a section whose job is to do nothing, or slow down the process as much as possible. In our country, that portion is the Senate—and they've gotten it down to a science. There's even a name for it: filibuster. Recently, it has proven to be a highly effective tactic; but after looking closer, I found that it has some problems passing the common sense test, and the test of Constitutionality.

 
After all of the talk of filibuster going across the wire, I decided to do some research. The first thing I did was visit the Senate website. It had a brief, but satisfactory history on the topic. You can find it here. What I took away from the website is that the Senate had a policy of unlimited debate. They could stand and speak for however long they'd like. It wasn't until 1917 that the Senate "adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote—a tactic known as 'cloture.'" This remained the rule for cloture until 1975, when the "Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate." I am predicting that in the next couple of years, the number will be reduced again, perhaps down to 55. The reason I don't think it would go down to 51 is because a good politician knows that they may not be on top forever; you never want to put anything in place that may put you at a disadvantage down the road. But I would actually go one step further than 55.

When I looked for the word "debate" in Webster's, this is what I found:

debate. v. 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.

Even though I was delighted at what I found, I was even more delighted at what I didn't find. The filibuster, historically, is no more than a word defined as the policy of unlimited debate in the Senate. So my problem isn't with filibuster, it is with "debate." In its definition, I did not find one reference to it being arbitrary. When there is a debate, there are at least two opposing views, and the arguments are structured around those views. After listening to a few rounds of Senator Byrd's rants, which could last for-e-ver, I don't think anyone would qualify what goes on during a filibuster as debate. So, this is what I suggest.

In addition to lowering the minimum number of votes for cloture down to 55, the Senators must also agree to actually debate the issue at hand. This does not eradicate the filibuster, it just gives it better-defined guidelines. Senators ought not to be wasting taxpayers' money getting paid quoting Shakespeare or telling stories about kids going to the store with their parents that have nothing to do with the issue(s) at hand. If a Senator does stray from the argument, they should be asked to sit and the filibuster should end.

Constitutionally, the 55 number may still have some problems. As one noted Senator has stated, "The Constitution states only five specific cases in which there is a requirement for more than a majority to work the will of this body: Ratification of a treaty, override of a Presidential veto, impeachment, adoption of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member of Congress. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution considered other cases in which a supermajority might have been required and rejected them. And we by our rules have effectively amended the Constitution—which I believe, respectfully, is not right—and added the opportunity of any Member or a minority of Members to require 60 votes."

But even with that very poignant statement, we all know that a filibuster requiring a simple majority vote for cloture won't happen. Senators see too much value in the filibuster to ever do that. It won't be until we, the citizens, decide that enough is enough with the waste of time and the disruption of the majority making Constitutional changes to our laws and processes. We all know about politicians' attitudes; heck, the statement above was made by none other than Senator Joe Lieberman on January 4, 1995. It is part of Congressional Record.

It is truly amazing how attitudes change!

Copyright 2003 by Kimani Jefferson