The Filibuster: Friend Or Foe Of The Constitution?

The filibuster is a legislative device in the United States Senate that permits senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, thus delaying or blocking a vote on a piece of legislation or confirmation. While it is not mentioned in the US Constitution, some argue that it contradicts majority rule and runs contrary to several clauses in the Constitution. The filibuster's abuse threatens the checks and balances between the branches of government and has been used to block civil rights legislation. As calls for eliminating the filibuster grow louder, this paragraph introduces the topic of whether the filibuster is, in fact, part of the Constitution.

Explore related products

Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of the Senate (Encounters: Explorations in Folklore and Ethnomusicology)

$2.99 $17.99

Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate (Princeton Studies in American Politics)

$27.58 $47

Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny, 1800-1821 (Library of Alabama Classics)

$28.45 $29.95

Speech

$13.51 $21.99

To Save Us All from Slavery's Power: Republican Alarms, Southern Terrors, and the Plunge into Civil War (A Nation Divided)

$32.5 $120

Thomas Brackett Reed: The Gilded Age Speaker Who Made the Rules for American Politics (Congressional Leaders)

$29.95 $39.99

The filibuster is not mentioned in the US Constitution

The filibuster was not a part of the Senate's initial procedures and only became possible with a change in Senate rules in 1806. The first frequent use of the filibuster was in the mid-20th century when Southern senators used it to resist civil rights bills. The Civil Rights Act of 1974, for example, was delayed by a filibuster for 74 days.

The filibuster has been criticised for its negative impact on democracy, as it allows a minority of senators to block any legislative action. This has resulted in calls for its elimination or reform. Some legal scholars argue that the filibuster may not be constitutional, as it contradicts the principle of majority rule and runs contrary to several clauses in the Constitution, such as Article I, Section 5, which states that "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business."

Opponents of the filibuster rule argue that it undermines the Great Compromise, which provides for equal representation of states in the Senate. They contend that a small group of senators can now use the filibuster to prevent any bill from coming to a vote, overriding the votes of a majority of senators.

The filibuster contradicts the majority rule

The filibuster is a Senate procedure that allows a minority group of senators to delay or block a vote on a piece of legislation or confirmation. It has been criticised for contradicting the majority rule and for its racist history. The procedure has been used to block civil rights legislation and voting reforms, with some scholars arguing that it may not be constitutional.

The filibuster is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution. It came about through a change in Senate rules in 1806 and has since been used to prevent the federal government from addressing injustices faced by Black Americans and people of colour. The idea of using extended debate to delay or block votes was invented to protect slavery. For the first eighty years of its existence, the only bills successfully blocked using the filibuster were civil rights legislation.

The filibuster has been criticised for undermining the majority rule in the US Senate. In the Senate, a simple majority of 51 votes is required to pass a bill. However, before it can get to a vote, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate, which is why a 60-vote supermajority is considered the de facto minimum for passing legislation in the Senate. This gives a minority of senators the power to block all legislation, contradicting the majority rule principle.

The filibuster has been described as undemocratic and a tool for partisan obstructionists who want to maintain the status quo. It has been used to block necessary reforms, such as improving access to voting and limiting the power of money in politics. The procedure has also disrupted the balance of powers in the Constitutional system, with legislative impasse leading to an increase in executive actions and associated policies that are more easily reversed.

The filibuster undermines the Great Compromise

The filibuster is not part of the US Constitution. It is a legislative device in the US Senate, where senators can speak for as long as they wish on any topic they choose, unless three-fifths of the senators bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. This sets a supermajority requirement of 60 votes for passing legislation in the Senate.

The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, was an agreement made between large and small states during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It established a bicameral legislature comprising the Senate and the House of Representatives. The agreement was that each state, regardless of size, would have two senators, while representation in the House of Representatives would be proportional to the state's population.

Secondly, the filibuster has been used to block civil rights legislation and prevent meaningful reforms on issues such as healthcare, climate change, and gun control. This goes against the spirit of the Great Compromise, which aimed to balance the interests of large and small states and ensure fair representation for all.

Thirdly, the filibuster has contributed to the stagnation of Congress, as it has been used to delay or block votes on important legislation. This has led to an increase in executive power, as presidents have sought to act without Congressional approval. The filibuster, therefore, undermines the checks and balances between the branches of government, which is a key feature of the US political system established by the Constitution, including the Great Compromise.

Finally, the filibuster has contributed to the polarization of the Senate, as it no longer incentivizes consensus and compromise. This goes against the intention of the Great Compromise, which was to foster collaboration and ensure that the interests of all states, large and small, were considered in the legislative process.

Explore related products

In Defense of a Political Court.

$38 $55

The Substance of Representation: Congress, American Political Development, and Lawmaking (Princeton Studies in American Politics: Historical, International, and Comparative Perspectives Book 133)

$22.76 $31

Senate Procedure and Practice

$58.56 $75

Inside Congress: A Guide for Navigating the Politics of the House and Senate Floors

$11.8 $14

Standing Rules of the Senate

$16.24

Rules of the Senate of the United States

$3.93 $16.99

The filibuster has been used to block civil rights legislation

The filibuster is a legislative device in the United States Senate that permits senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” (usually 60 out of 100 senators) bring debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. The procedure is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution and only became theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules in 1806.

In recent years, the use of the filibuster has escalated, often slowing business in the chamber to a halt. The filibuster has effectively set a 60-vote supermajority requirement for passing legislation in the Senate, which could doom many proposals, including meaningful reforms on issues such as health care, climate change, and gun control. As advocates push for pro-democracy legislation, calls for eliminating the filibuster have grown louder. In his remarks at the funeral of civil rights leader and congressman John Lewis in July 2020, former President Barack Obama called the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic,” arguing that the procedure should be eliminated if it is used to block voting rights reforms. Stacey Abrams, a voting rights champion and former minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives, has also called on senators to lift the filibuster for election reform legislation.

Some legal scholars argue that the filibuster may not be constitutional, citing Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states that "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business." The filibuster's requirement of a supermajority is inconsistent with the Constitution's "implicit premise" of majoritarianism, which expects a simple majority for legislation.

The filibuster can be eliminated by changing Senate Rule XXII

The filibuster is not part of the US Constitution. It is a legislative device in the United States Senate, which allows senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. The procedure has been criticised for its troubling implications for democracy, and its historical complicity in perpetuating Jim Crow laws and blocking civil rights legislation.

Changing Rule XXII to eliminate the filibuster would require a two-thirds supermajority. This could be achieved through a non-debatable motion brought by the Senate majority leader, followed by a point of order that cloture can be invoked with a simple majority. Another option for eliminating the filibuster is to set a new precedent, place restrictions on its use, or make a rule change. However, any modification or limitation of the filibuster could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of the senators present and voting to break the filibuster.

Frequently asked questions