Subject: [big campaign] Huff Post from Creamer- Lieberman Betrayal Shows Need to Change Filibuster Rules
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:44:48 EST
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Lieberman Betrayal Illustrates Why Senate Filibuster  Rules Must Change  
Senator Joe Lieberman’s successful maneuver to eliminate any form of  
public option from the Senate health reform bill makes one thing perfectly  
clear: to pass the most important elements of the progressive agenda, the Senate  
must change its filibuster rules. 
The current 60-vote requirement to cut off debate empowers a tiny  minority 
of Senators to prevent up or down votes on measures that clearly have  
majority support in the Senate, and overwhelming support among the American  
people.  It is a fundamentally  undemocratic procedure that is now used 
regularly by the most entrenched  economic interests in America to prevent change.  
If it is not changed, it will severely limit the ability of President  
Obama and the Democratic leadership to enact the most important changes that are 
 necessary to build a foundation for long-term prosperity in America.  
The 60-vote cloture requirement would not be so problematic if it were  
actually used only to assure a reasonable debate on a given issue.  In 
practice, it has come to be used over  the last several decades as a means of 
preventing an up or down vote – or  allowing the minority to fundamentally 
constrain the will of the majority; to  allow the tail to wag the dog. 
In the current case, the public option is supported by 55 of the Senate’s  
Democrats, a majority of the House, and 70% of the American people. It is  
opposed by the minority Republicans in the House and Senate, the insurance  
industry, and one key “Independent” Senator: Joe Lieberman. 
Let’s recall that Joe Lieberman has always been the “go-to guy” for the  
biggest private insurers.  He was  defeated in a Democratic primary in 
Connecticut, defied the will of the Party by  running as an independent, and won 
mainly on the strength of Republican  votes.  Then he became a turncoat in  
the General Election – backing McCain over the Democratic nominee Barack 
Obama –  and campaigned against the President throughout America. 
Now the Senate rules empower  him to limit the scope of health care reform, 
tax policy, and just about every  other item on the Democratic agenda.  Why 
does he have more power than Progressives like Senator Sherrod  Brown?  
Because he could care less  if the Senate ever passes health care reform – or 
any other piece of  fundamentally progressive legislation.  His best 
alternative to a negotiated settlement is simply “No.”   That gives him the same 
kind of  power possessed by a suicide bomber.  If he doesn’t get his way, he’
s happy to see the whole place go up in  smoke. 
The American people did not elect Joe Lieberman – or the candidate he  
backed as President – but Senate rules have given him an effective veto over  
legislation.  
It is one thing for a Senator who would be the 50th vote to  have that kind 
of power.  But in a  democracy, where the majority is supposed to rule, it 
is outrageous that he is  in a position to call the shots when we now 
allegedly have an overwhelming  Democratic majority of 60 Democrats to 40 
Republicans. 
The need for change has become more intense over the last two decades,  
because the polarization of the Senate has substantially increased. Senate  
comity might have limited the use of the filibuster in the past – but no more.  
The Republican party of  “No” has no intention of using the  filibuster 
simply to assure adequate debate.  They intend to use every tool they can  to 
stop the Democratic agenda cold.  It is madness for Democrats – who control 
the Senate – to willingly hand  them this powerful weapon.  
The Senate rule that 60 votes are needed to cut off debate is not  
contained in the Constitution.  It  is an internal Senate rule set by the body and 
has been changed many times in  the country’s history. 
There was no cloture provision in the rules through much of the  19th 
Century.  In fact,  the first Senate filibuster did not occur until 1837, and 
actual filibusters  were used rarely to stop legislation. 
In 1917, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Senate  
enacted a rule for cloture of debate.  From 1917 to 1949 the requirement was 
two-thirds of those  voting. 
In 1949 the requirement was changed to two-thirds of the entire Senate  
membership.  In 1959 it was restored  to two-thirds of those voting.  
Finally, in 1975 the rule was changed so that three-fifths of the Senate  
membership – generally 60 – could cut off debate. 
In the last two decades the number of filibusters has exploded.  In the 
1960s, no Senate term had more  than seven filibusters.  Since 2000,  no term 
has had fewer than 49 filibusters.  In the 110th Congress, when Republicans 
were in the minority,  there were 112 cloture votes.  
In practice today, any significant piece of legislation requires 60 votes  –
 not a 51-person majority vote – making the Senate a truly undemocratic  
institution. 
The Senate rules of the 111th Congress require that 67 votes  are needed to 
change the rules again during the session.  But there is little question 
that a  majority can set the rules of the body (just as they do in the House) 
at the  beginning of a Senate term.  In  fact, constitutionally, 51 Senators 
could probably change the rules during the  term as well. 
In 1892, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Ballin that changes in Senate  
rules could be achieved by a simple majority vote. It ruled in part  that: 
The constitution empowers each  house to determine its rules of 
proceedings. [...] The power to make rules is  not one which once exercised is 
exhausted. It is a continuous power, always  subject to be exercised by the house, 
and, within the limitations suggested,  absolute and beyond the challenge of 
any other body or tribunal.   
The constitution provides that  'a majority of each [house] shall 
constitute a quorum to do business.' In other  words, when a majority are present the 
house is in a position to do business.  Its capacity to transact business 
is then established, created by the mere  presence of a majority, and does 
not depend upon the disposition or assent or  action of any single [144 U.S. 
1, 6] member or fraction of the majority present.  All that the constitution 
requires is the presence of a majority, and when that  majority are present 
the power of the house arises.   
Of course many Progressives will say, oh…not so fast… what happens when  
the Republicans are once again in the majority?  Won’t they undo everything we
’ve  accomplished if we don’t have a filibuster? 
Three points: 
First, fundamentally Democrats are the party of change and Republicans  the 
Party of the status quo.  The  Senate rules are mainly used by entrenched 
defenders of the status quo to keep  things the way they are. Over time, the 
advocates of change will benefit by  making the Senate rules more “change 
friendly.” 
Second, most major progressive structural changes become very popular  once 
they are in place.  Try  fundamentally changing Social Security or Medicare 
– even with 50 Senate  votes.  We stopped the privatization  of Social 
Security by making it radioactive among the voters.  Besides, if we don’t change 
the Senate  rules, we won’t be able to pass many of the most critical 
elements in our agenda  in the first place. 
Third, we don’t have to completely eliminate the filibuster to make the  
Senate more democratic (with a small d).  The rule could be set, for instance, 
so that while it takes 60 votes to  cut off debate the first time cloture 
is invoked, two days later it takes 57  votes, two days after that 55 votes, 
two days later 53 and finally 51. That  would allow a minority to demand a 
vigorous debate.  It would allow a minority to exact a  legislative cost for 
the passage of controversial legislation.  But it would not ultimately allow 
a  minority to block the will of the majority – which is the current state 
of  affairs.  
Any number of other formulas is possible, but the bottom line is clear.  If 
the voters want fundamental change, the majority of the House and Senate 
want  fundamental change, and the President of the United States  will sign a 
bill creating fundamental change, a tiny minority of Senators –  people like 
Joe Lieberman -- should not be empowered by archaic Senate rules to  stop 
fundamental change.  
Robert Creamer is a long-time  political organizer and strategist, and 
author of the recent book: “Stand Up  Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” 
available on _amazon.com_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206567141&sr=8-1
) .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.