Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.
There is a legitimate controversy brewing about the U.S. Senate so-called filibuster rule that requires legislation by the Senate to be approved by 60 out of the 100 senators. This is not the rule in the House of Representatives, where a majority of at least one vote is necessary. Some people argue that requiring 60 votes makes it very difficult to pass legislation since in most cases one political party does not have enough senators to meet the filibuster threshold of 60, and therefore the minority is able to block the majority. Let’s take a look at the issues involved.
First of all, it should be noted that the U.S. Constitution does not require 60 votes out of 100 to pass legislation; it requires only a simple majority of one. The term filibuster refers to the process of a senator taking the floor to speak and continuing in order to block a vote on pending legislation by “talking the bill to death.” In 1841, then senator Henry Clay threatened to introduce a process by which debate could be ended and thereby, forcing a vote. He was not successful. It was not until 1917, that the Senate passed a “cloture “ rule that allowed the Senate to terminate debate with a three-fifths majority of 67. That rule was modified in 1975 to require only 60 votes for cloture. Filibusters over the years have been used to block legislation that most of the people in the country supported, for example, civil rights legislation in the 1950s and1960s. Now they do not even have to stand up and speak for hours; all they have to do is threaten to do it!
As noted above, the filibuster rule allows the minority to block action by the majority. A glaring example today is the “SAVE” Act that is being blocked in the Senate by Democrats. That bill would require all voters in federal elections to show a photo ID and verification of citizenship, which polls show is supported by over 80% of Americans regardless of party affiliation. Herein lies the essential problem where the will of the majority of people is being blocked by the minority political party thereby denying the right of the people to control their government. The recent extended shutdown of the entire federal government for over 40 days by the Democrats is another example. I believe it is fair to argue that a political party winning the Presidency, the majority in the House, and the Senate has demonstrated that the majority of citizens support their platform and should be able to implement the changes voted for by the people. This is what government of the people, for the people and by the people, looks like.
The Democrats have stated that if they win all the branches of government they would add the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as States giving them four more senators; expand the Supreme Court to twelve allowing them to appoint three more socialists to the court; and grant citizenship to all illegal aliens. If this occurs, it will be next to impossible for the conservative majority of people in this country to reassert control over the federal government. Given this stated goal and the country’s fight against a Marxist takeover, it seems clear that we must ensure that the issues of the Republican Party to support this country, especially on its 250th anniversary, are implemented through legislation not just executive orders by President Trump. For example, removing the filibuster would allow the Congress to give President Trump the authority to implement tariffs that are essential to fair trade with other countries. The entire Trump agenda is in jeopardy if it is not confirmed by Congress. Otherwise, the next Democrat President can open the borders, reinstate climate change policies that are neither necessary or helpful, weaken the military, and increase taxes.
I do not believe that the majority of people in this country want this to happen. The filibuster rule must be eliminated; the sooner the better.