- Whichever, please Senator McConnell, just get it done
- Majority Leader McCarthy, Speaker Boehner’s chief lieutenant, calls for the Senate to do away with the filibuster
- McCarthy’s conclusion is correct and key to honoring Republicans pledge to do everything they can to stop Obama’s amnesty decrees and repeal and replace Obamacare. It is necessary to deal with Obama’s destructive inclinations.
We have been seeing a lot of references to using the so-called budget/spending reconciliation process to overcome the Democrats phoned in filibuster and move a DHS bill to Obama with restrictions on funding his amnesty decrees and all the spending that cascades from them (also see our recent posts here and here). We focus here on the Senate because our understanding is that the House provisions for reconciliation are less cumbersome and of even less excuse for inaction.
The concept and rules surrounding reconciliation are arcane enough that we venture forth with this analysis with trepidation and the promise of appreciation of any corrections to our understanding. More importantly, if there is a path to use it to stop the DHS from furthering Obama’s executive order amnesty then fine and kindly have at it Senator McConnell. If it is your preferred method, then see to it but do not proceed to do it halfheartedly with the intention of abandoning the effort due to ginned up Democrat opinion.
Democrats used the reconciliation process to ram through the government takeover of healthcare without a single Republican vote. The reconciliation process in the Senate allows the bypassing of Senate filibuster rules (60 votes to end debate) in circumstances that provide for limiting debate on budget related bills and that disallow amendments. The process is capable of being decreed or maneuvered parliamentarialy as was done in 2010 by Reid and Pelosi. In such circumstances only a majority vote is required to get their and pass “reconciliation.” “Traditionally” it is to be used in limited circumstances to facilitate largely agreed to matters. The circumstances and process could involve an opinion of the Senate Parliamentarian. And there is a rub of sorts. But it should not be debilitating. It would not be to Democrats on matters of key political goals.
Consider this article in Politico in January of this year:
Obamacare’s little secret: Meet the most important person you don’t know
So what if the Parliamentarian advises that reconciliation conditions are not met? We suspect that McConnell is paralyzed by that “fear” or may even welcome it and use it to say his hands are tied. But the Parliamentarian is not a Constitutional position, it was invented in 1935, and they can be fired and replaced or ignored and the Senate can still proceed to do its will.
Firing or ignoring the Parliamentarian (a hired staff person after all) has been done before, one or the other, by both parties. Parliamentarians are advisers and do not dictate procedural conditions in any organization, only bylaws. As regards Congress, it remains the Constitution that each chamber makes its rules (or changes them) within limited procedural requirements of the Constitution (spending bills to originate in the House, majority rules in both chambers, except in the case of a veto).
As regards the filibuster provisions in the Senate, it is our contention that the best route to go is to eliminate them and thus remove impediments that only serve to protect Obama’s usurpations and artificially keep the Congress from asserting its Constitutional responsibilities of controlling the purse and legislative policy. There are many serious usurpations other than amnesty and Obamacare changes that have been foisted on the country with impunity. Before the full extent of the damage can be inflicted, or they become thoroughly inculcated, Congress must reverse them expeditiously and the filibuster is a supra-Constitutional impediment to doing so.
There is not sufficient good will in forty Democrat Senators to allow their minority views to control the country or protect Obama’s policies through the filibuster. They can do their damnedest by protecting his vetoes but do not let Obama escape focused blame or the ease of hiding behind political artifices. Senator McConnell has called for “regular order” fine – it should be the “regular order” of the Senate prior to the artifice of the filibuster.
Senator McConnell – conservatives fought to provide a majority army in the Senate that put you in charge, you have the army, now use it.
Some excellent points relating to the subject of this post are available in the comments appended to a PowerLine article by Paul Mirengoff . His article opposes ending the availability of the Senate filibuster process.
Michael K
“the disadvantage of eliminating the filibuster may be more theoretical than real.” The real reform would be to make the filibustering Senators take the floor and hold it, as was once the standard.
Jack R.
Correct. The ‘virtual’ filibuster is a joke and always has been.
Cord B.
BS. Tie the filibuster to Harry Reid. It’s on the table until he leaves the Senate. Krauthammer is right, and REPUBLICANS NEED TO GROW A PAIR.
Rick C.
Exactly. Mirengoff is full of it (again). McConnell should profusely (thank) Harry Reid and then simply state that the Constitution requires the Senate to pass legislation to fund the government. Therefore a filibuster is out of order. If anyone challenges the chair, then a vote is taken and the threshold is 51 votes. After the legislation is passed, thank Harry Reid again.
McConnell should do this several times, thanking Reid each time. Yes it is punishment and it is very public punishment. Reid knew this could happen.
Then, when the Democrats grow tired of this, then go to find an agreement that will survive new elections. I would also make change to the filibuster rule. I would agree the 60% threshold applies only to members on the floor and voting. That would prevent the minority from leaving one person on the floor to stop a unanimous consent motion. Instead, they would need all their troops on the floor to actually establish a filibuster.
Stephen S.
. . . The Democrats have declared their intention to go down in History with the agenda of the left. They have long since declared that their true enemy is the GOP and not any known or possible threat to this country. For them, there is absolutely no room for negotiation with reason or logic or even fiscal sanity. They will accept nothing less than complete surrender. So it is time to treat them with the same respect they have treated the country. Do to them what they have done to the country. Eviscerate them. Pile legislation upon legislation that Obama will have to either sign or veto. If he wants to rule by the pen, then make him do it! Make Obama veto his way into history.
John W
There’s a plausible argument that the filibuster is unconstitutional, because the effect of the filibuster is to require a supermajority – 60 votes – to pass anything in the Senate. The Constitution gives each legislative body the authority to establish its own rules, but it also specifies the few occasions when a supermajority is mandated (e.g. approval of treaties, conviction after impeachment). The filibuster was NOT part of the Founders’ plans in 1787.
In reality, the filibuster doesn’t prolong debate: there’s little to no meaningful floor debate in the first place. I challenge anyone to cite even one example from 2014 where a Senator’s vote on any issue was influenced by another Senator’s speechifying. The filibuster is a tool of obstruction, which also makes it harder to assign blame or credit for what Congress is doing. Abolish the filibuster, pass laws in both the House and Senate, and let Obama sign or veto them, thus establishing clear accountability for what happens.
So we demand that Senator McConnell partake of one or the other, and the other if the one doesn’t work. Make it so, protect this country from the truly unconstitutional and harmful actions of President Obama.
Additional links:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/dont-abolish-the-filibuster.php
http://humanevents.com/2015/02/27/a-plan-to-repeal-obamacare-root-and-branch/
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Parliamentary-Procedure-3522/2012/3/vote-sustain-appeal-decision.htm
www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/health-care-ruling-strengthens-gop-ability-resolve/nPjPJ/
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201003030002
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/senate-parliamentarian-elizabeth-macdonough-obamacare-114274.html
