Filibusters ... The original Talk Shows

April 19,2005

Early in the nineteenth century, John Randolph, a senator from Virginia, took to making long, boring and senseless speeches on the floor of the Senate. The Senate got so tired of his senseless diatribes that it voted to give the presiding officer the power to shut him up..

However in 1872, Vice President Schuyler Colfax made the following ruling. He ruled that “under the practice of the Senate, the presiding officer can not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending issue.” That ruling started what was later to be called the Filibuster. It was the return of unlimited speechifying in the US Senate that had been outlawed for over 50 years.

The word filibuster was not used to describe the tactic for some time to come. Filibuster had a quite different meaning. At that time the term filibuster referred to bands of Americans who went to South and Central America trying to stir up revolutions. Such attempts at revolution were referred to in the USA as Filibusters. They got the name from the Spanish word filibustero.

Within a few years after VP Colfax's ruling the use of delaying tactics in the Senate was rife. Senators practicing such tactics were compared to military adventurers who engaged in filibusters in South America. American filibusterers, who wreaked havoc in other countries, and were said to be filibustering. One Senator described the unlimited speech making to prevent passage of a bill as “filibustering against the United States.”  The Name stuck.

Over the years the word came to mean “obstruction of legislation in the U.S. Senate by prolonged speechmaking.”

One of the  most frequent uses of the filibuster was to block civil rights legislation. When Northern Democrats and Republicans united to try to pass civil rights legislation the Southern Democrats would filibuster.  It was also used by Republicans and Southern Democrats to block many of the things FDR wanted to do. It was used to block the Fair Labor Standards act until the Democrats elected a  filibuster proof Senate in 1966.

It is certainly true that if V.P. Colfax had the power to make filibusters legal, then V.P. Cheney has the power to make them illegal. It was after all only a V.P.s ruling that made the filibuster legal. For over half a century before 1872 what we call the filibuster was Illegal. But here is th hard part... The VP must have at least half the senators approve of his ruling to make it law.

The so called nuclear option is to have Cheney rule on the matter, have 51 senators approve and thereby return the interpretation of the senate rules to what they were before 1872.

Please understand that when a V.P. makes a decision on the meaning of a rule members can ask for a senate confirm or overturn that ruling. If a simple majority validates the VP's ruling then the VPs can enforce his ruling by such means as the senate rules allow. But if it is not approved by a senate vote, then the VP ruling is in vain.

The question on everyone's mind is does Frist have at least 50 votes. If he does then Cheney is the tie breaker and the rule change takes place. If Frist does not have 50 votes, then even if Cheney makes the ruling, the senate will vote to overule Cheney.

There are 6 RINOs who have said they are sitting on the fence. Frist will have to get one or more of those six votes. I suspect there is a lot of negotiations going on.  I would not doubt that efforts are being made to try to get a Democrat or two.  There are Democratic senators in very red states that may be tempted to vote for the Cheney rule interpretation.

How Frist can't get too tough with the RINOs.. That was tried on Jeffords and he just walked over to Daschle and  made a deal to give the Senate to the Democrats for two years. However , Bush and Frist have to find a way to be absolutely certain they have the votes before they act.

But while Republicans are working  to get some DINO support, Democrats are going all out to gain some RINO support.

I would warn those who are tempted  to  trash Frist and Bush for not pulling the Nuclear option. Frist is not going to pull the option unless they have the votes to win. Trying the Nuclear option and having the Democrats win is not the thing to do.

Of course the Democrats can, if they wish , have it brought up on the senate floor. All it takes is 24 hours notice of a proposed rule change. If the Democrats have the votes, they could bring it up and deal the Bush administration a real blow by defeating the rules change.

I think the best thing we can do is try to help Frist and Bush  get 50 sure votes.

We can help ours side win, or we can let the Democrats win.

WE NEED 50 VOTES IN THE SENATE.  If you care about the future of the Supreme court, you need to  help our leadership get them.