The Filibuster: Where In The Constitution?

The filibuster is a powerful legislative device in the United States Senate. It is not mentioned in the US Constitution, but it is a tactic that has been used repeatedly to block popular legislation and diminish the political power of Black and brown voters. The filibuster allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote on a piece of legislation or confirmation. This has resulted in a troubling legacy, with civil rights legislation being blocked. The filibuster is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, but some legal scholars argue that it may be unconstitutional, citing Article I, Section 5, which states that a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business.

Explore related products

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

$4.09 $16.99

Exceptions to the Rule: The Politics of Filibuster Limitations in the U.S. Senate

$25.08 $34

Senate Manual: Containing the Standing Rules and Orders of the United States Senate, the Constitution ... Jefferson's Manual, Etc

$34.22

The filibuster is not in the US Constitution

The filibuster has been criticised for diminishing the political power of Black and brown voters and the lawmakers who represent them. It has been used to block civil rights legislation intended to combat racial discrimination, and has been described as a “Jim Crow relic”. In 2021, former President Barack Obama called for the procedure to be eliminated if it is used to block voting rights.

The filibuster has also been criticised for allowing a minority of senators to overrule the majority and block bills of their choosing. This has resulted in important and popular legislation dying on the Senate floor. In 2022, out of 18 pro-democracy bills, the US Senate filibuster torpedoed 17 of them.

Some legal scholars argue that the filibuster may not even be constitutional, citing Article I, Section 5, which states that "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business". The filibuster contradicts the majority rule and runs directly contrary to several clauses in the Constitution.

Article I, Section 5 contradicts the filibuster

The filibuster is a legislative tactic used by senators to delay or block a vote on a piece of legislation or confirmation. It has been used repeatedly to block civil rights legislation and diminish the political power of Black and brown voters. Some legal scholars argue that the filibuster may not be constitutional, and Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution is often cited in this debate.

Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution states that "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business." This implies a commitment to majority rule as a general principle, which contradicts the filibuster, which allows a minority of senators to block legislation. The filibuster has effectively set a 60-vote supermajority requirement for passing legislation in the Senate, which goes against the idea of majority rule implied by Article I, Section 5.

The filibuster is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and the Senate's rules around it have been amended multiple times. The Constitution gives Congress the right to make its own rules, and some senators have argued that, under Article I, Section 5, the Senate has the right to change its rules by a simple majority at the beginning of each Congress. However, in 1969, the Senate set a precedent that there is no exception to the cloture rule at the beginning of a Congress, making it harder to eliminate the filibuster.

The constitutionality of the filibuster has been challenged in court several times, but these cases have not reached the merits of the issue. The filibuster's contradiction of Article I, Section 5's implication of majority rule is a key point in this debate. As Senate gridlock persists and the filibuster continues to impede legislative progress, calls for its elimination or reform have grown louder.

In conclusion, while the filibuster is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, Article I, Section 5's implication of majority rule contradicts the filibuster's allowance of minority rule. This contradiction is a significant point in the debate over the filibuster's constitutionality and has fueled calls for its elimination or reform to promote more effective and democratic law-making.

The filibuster's legacy of blocking civil rights legislation

The filibuster is not mentioned in the US Constitution, but it has been used repeatedly to block civil rights legislation and voting reforms. The filibuster is a tactic used by senators to delay or block a vote on legislation by speaking for as long as possible, taking advantage of the Senate rules that allow for unlimited debate on a bill. This procedure has been labelled a "Jim Crow relic" by critics, including former President Barack Obama, who have called for its elimination.

The filibuster has a long history of being used to block civil rights legislation, with one of the most notorious examples being Strom Thurmond's filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond, a segregationist and senator from South Carolina, began his filibuster on August 28, 1957, and spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes, attempting to prevent the passage of the bill. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was designed to federally secure and protect the right of Black Americans to vote, but Thurmond argued that the bill was unnecessary and unconstitutional. Although Thurmond's filibuster ultimately failed to prevent the bill's passage, it highlighted the filibuster's potential as a tool to block civil rights legislation.

In 1964, a group of Southern senators, including Richard Russell, Thurmond, Robert Byrd, William Fulbright, and Sam Ervin, started another filibuster to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This filibuster lasted for 60 working days in the Senate, but it, too, ultimately failed. On June 10, 1964, the Senate was able to muster enough votes to end the filibuster, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964. The act prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal.

The filibuster has continued to be a roadblock to pro-democracy and civil rights legislation in recent years. In 2021, the For the People Act, a comprehensive democracy reform bill, was introduced in the Senate, where the filibuster may determine its fate. During President Obama's term, the filibuster was used to block the DREAM Act, transparency in campaign spending (the DISCLOSE Act), gun violence prevention legislation, and workers' rights. As a result of the filibuster, a minority of senators have been able to shut down popular and important legislation, leading to increasing calls for its elimination or reform.

Explore related products

A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Composed Originally for the Use of the Senate of the United States: With References to the Practice and Rules of the House of Representatives

$18.45 $18.45

Rules Of The Senate, The Joint Rules Of The House And Senate And The Standing Committee...

$19.75

The Constitution of the United States of America, Extended Edition: A Complete Reference Guide with Detailed Explanations of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights

$29.99 $19.99

U.S. Senate Rules: Procedures for Impeachment Trials

$24.57

The Guerrilla Guide to Robert's Rules

$29.89

Standing Rules of the United States Senate: Navigating Legislative Procedures and Political Protocol in the United States Senate

$1.99

The filibuster's routine use to stall new legislation

The filibuster is a political procedure in which one or more members of a legislative body prolong the debate on proposed legislation to delay or entirely prevent a decision from being made. It is sometimes referred to as "talking a bill to death" or "talking out a bill". The term "filibuster" is derived from the Dutch word "vrijbuiter", meaning "freebooter", a pillaging and plundering adventurer. The modern English form was borrowed from the Spanish "filibustero", meaning lawless plunderer.

The filibuster has been used throughout history to stall new legislation and has been criticised for impeding the progress of legislative assemblies. One of the first known practitioners of the filibuster was Cato the Younger, a Roman senator who would obstruct measures by speaking continuously until nightfall, as the Roman Senate required all business to conclude by dusk. In more recent times, the filibuster has been used by lawmakers to stall legislation on issues such as health care, climate change, and gun control, and civil rights. For example, in 2012, Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash engaged in a nine-hour filibuster to stall the passage of industrial relations laws in Australia. In South Korea, opposition lawmakers filibustered for 193 hours in 2016 to stall the Anti-Terrorism bill, which they claimed would give too much power to the National Intelligence Service.

The use of the filibuster has escalated in recent years, often slowing down the legislative process and preventing meaningful reforms from being passed. In the US, the filibuster has been criticised for impeding the expansion of American democracy and the rights of voters. For example, in 2021, the For the People Act, a comprehensive democracy reform bill, was introduced in the Senate, where the filibuster may have determined its fate. The filibuster has also been used to block civil rights legislation and voting reforms, leading to calls for its elimination. Some legal scholars argue that the filibuster may not even be constitutional, as it contradicts the principle that a majority of each House is required to do business.

While there have been attempts to exempt certain types of legislation from the filibuster's supermajority requirement, such as presidential appointments and budget reconciliation processes, the filibuster continues to be a roadblock to pro-democracy reform. It allows a minority of senators to overrule the majority and block bills, giving them absolute veto power over the legislative process. As a result, many have advocated for the elimination or reform of the filibuster to ensure that it does not impede the progress of democracy and the will of the voters.

The filibuster's elimination would require a two-thirds supermajority

The filibuster is a tactic used by senators to delay a bill from getting to a vote without supermajority support. This procedure has been used to block civil rights legislation and voting reforms, perpetuating Jim Crow laws. Due to its troubling implications for democracy, there have been increasing calls for its elimination. However, eliminating the filibuster would require changing Senate rules, particularly Rule XXII, which currently allow for unlimited debate. This rule change would need a two-thirds supermajority, presenting a significant hurdle to those seeking reform.

The filibuster is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, but certain types of legislation are exempt from its supermajority requirement. While some argue that the filibuster may be unconstitutional, others point to the Senate's right to change its rules by a simple majority at the beginning of each Congress. The cloture rule, or Rule XXII, passed in 1917, allows for the breaking of a filibuster with a two-thirds majority. This requirement was reduced to 60 votes in 1975, which is now the minimum needed to pass a law.

The filibuster has been abused to block popular legislation and stifle the will of voters, with a handful of senators holding veto power over the legislative process. This has resulted in meaningful reforms on issues like healthcare, climate change, and gun control being blocked. In recent years, its use has escalated, slowing down business in the chamber. The modern-era filibuster has had significant political effects, with Senate leaders using cloture motions to manage the flow of business even without a threatened filibuster.

As a result of the filibuster's negative impact, there have been growing calls for its elimination, including from former President Barack Obama, who referred to it as a "Jim Crow relic." Stacey Abrams, a voting rights champion, has also advocated for lifting the filibuster for election reform legislation. While changing Rule XXII would be the most straightforward way to eliminate the filibuster, the required two-thirds supermajority makes this challenging. The nuclear option, where the Senate majority leader uses a non-debatable motion to bring a bill for a vote, is another potential method to overcome the filibuster.

Frequently asked questions