If you read Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, you’ll see no mention of a filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting.
The Senate was seen as a great legislative body dating back to the Roman Senate, and was seen as the place where great men would give proper time and consideration to the issues of the day. It wasn’t until 1917 that the Senate established rules for limiting debate.
Originally, at least, the filibuster wasn’t about preventing the Senate from taking action. It was about making sure everyone had his say. But in the 1850s, issues relating to slavery started causing problems, In 1917, the Senate finally codified a way to cut off a filibuster by invoking cloture with a two-thirds vote.
That was eventually changed to three-fifths, and since 1980, that’s the way it has been.
It is only the last 12 years in which the filibuster has gone far beyond its original intent. Since 2009, Republican leader Mitch McConnell has made the decision to block everything Democrats do and essentially to require a 60-vote supermajority to pass anything.
And worse yet, he has done it in a way as to prevent any of his individual members from being called obstructionist.
In the past, when the filibuster has been used, the entire Senate would vote on whether to invoke cloture. The roll call vote would show which senators were trying to block the legislation. But the way they do it now, McConnell tells Chuck Schumer he’s filibustering and that he’s got the votes to block cloture. Schumer drops the legislation and no one has to go on the record anywhere.
The filibuster has been eliminated in some cases, primarily nominations of judges, but McConnell essentially said last week that anything that could be filibustered would be filibustered.
Say what you like, but that was never the intent of the rule.
Actually, former Senator Tom Harkin had a reasonable idea that would have maintained the Senate’s ability to deliberate without allowing complete obstruction. His proposal was that the first cloture vote would require 60 aye votes. If it failed, a second vote one week later would require 57 ayes.
If it failed, another vote a week later would require 54 votes, and a fourth vote after another week would require 51 votes.
There is simply no reason that 41 senators, who could represent less that one-fifth of the people in the country, should be able to permanently prevent that Senate from acting.
No reason at all.