Changes

A '''filibuster''' is an attempt to block [[United States Senate|Senate]] vote on a bill by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>  There is no right to filibuster in the House. {{fact}}Since 1975 it takes 60 votes in the Senate to allow a vote, making the 60 seats a goal for both parties.{{fact}}

A '''filibuster''' is an attempt to block [[United States Senate|Senate]] vote on a bill by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>  There is no right to filibuster in the House. Since 1975 it takes 60 votes in the Senate to allow a vote, making the 60 seats a goal for both parties.

The term "filibuster" was also used in the 1840s for Americans who raised private armies and tried to take over small countries in Central America. {{fact}}[[File:Mr-smith.jpg|thumb|290px|Bad news for Senator Smith: evil men have manipulated public opinion, telling him to quit]]  

The term "filibuster" was also used in the 1840s for Americans who raised private armies and tried to take over small countries in Central America. [[File:Mr-smith.jpg|thumb|290px|Bad news for Senator Smith: evil men have manipulated public opinion, telling him to quit]]  

==Famous Filibusters==

==Famous Filibusters==

In practice 19th century filibusters were successful only at the end of a session, when the clock was ticking.  The Senate thereby refused to vote on the [[Wilmot Proviso]] regarding slavery in 1846. {{fact}}

In practice 19th century filibusters were successful only at the end of a session, when the clock was ticking.  The Senate thereby refused to vote on the [[Wilmot Proviso]] regarding slavery in 1846.  

In 1917 a bipartisan group of liberal isolationists led by Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] filibustered a bill to arm American merchant ships that were being attacked by German submarines; war had not been declared and the opponents thought big business was promoting a war with Germany.  The filibuster stopped the legislation, but President [[Woodrow Wilson]] used his war powers to arm the ships anyway.<ref>Thomas W. Ryley, ''A Little Group of Willful Men: A Study of Congressional-Presidential Authority,'' (1975) </ref>

In 1917 a bipartisan group of liberal isolationists led by Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] filibustered a bill to arm American merchant ships that were being attacked by German submarines; war had not been declared and the opponents thought big business was promoting a war with Germany.  The filibuster stopped the legislation, but President [[Woodrow Wilson]] used his war powers to arm the ships anyway.<ref>Thomas W. Ryley, ''A Little Group of Willful Men: A Study of Congressional-Presidential Authority,'' (1975) </ref>

In 1941, on the eve of World War II, President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], in an effort to integrate minority groups into the war effort, issued an [[executive order]], with no vote in Congress, that created the Fair Employment Practices Committee ([[FEPC]]), and enlarged its responsibilities in 1943. {{fact}}It required companies with federal contracts to not discriminate against employees on the base of race, religion or ethnicity.{{fact}} However, only congressional action could extend its life beyond the war years. Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico introduced a bill to establish a permanent FEPC in 1945 which set off a national controversy over how much control the federal government should have in employment practices.{{fact}} Southern Democrats viewed the bill as a step toward social equality of the races. Leading the opposition was Senator [[Theodore G. Bilbo]] of Mississippi who vowed he would beat the 'damnable, unAmerican and unconstitutional' FEPC to death. The bill was withdrawn from consideration after a 24-day filibuster.<ref> Robert J. Bailey, "Theodore G. Bilbo and the Fair Employment Practices Controversy: a Southern Senator's Reactions to a Changing World." ''Journal of Mississippi History'' 1980 42(1): 27-42 </ref>  

In 1941, on the eve of World War II, President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], in an effort to integrate minority groups into the war effort, issued an [[executive order]], with no vote in Congress, that created the Fair Employment Practices Committee ([[FEPC]]), and enlarged its responsibilities in 1943. It required companies with federal contracts to not discriminate against employees on the base of race, religion or ethnicity. However, only congressional action could extend its life beyond the war years. Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico introduced a bill to establish a permanent FEPC in 1945 which set off a national controversy over how much control the federal government should have in employment practices. Southern Democrats viewed the bill as a step toward social equality of the races. Leading the opposition was Senator [[Theodore G. Bilbo]] of Mississippi who vowed he would beat the 'damnable, unAmerican and unconstitutional' FEPC to death. The bill was withdrawn from consideration after a 24-day filibuster.<ref> Robert J. Bailey, "Theodore G. Bilbo and the Fair Employment Practices Controversy: a Southern Senator's Reactions to a Changing World." ''Journal of Mississippi History'' 1980 42(1): 27-42 </ref>  

After 1917 the most famous filibusters were undertaken by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The record for the longest filibuster is held by Senator [[Strom Thurmond]], who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours, 18 minutes.<ref>http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm</ref>

After 1917 the most famous filibusters were undertaken by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The record for the longest filibuster is held by Senator [[Strom Thurmond]], who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours, 18 minutes.<ref>http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm</ref>

The right of unlimited debate in the Senate was rejected by the [[Founding Fathers]]. The Continental Congress adopted Rule 10. It followed the practice of the British Parliament and precedent allowed a simple majority to cut off debate by a motion for "the previous question." This rule was included in sections 8 and 9 of the rules adopted by the first Senate in 1789, was included in Jefferson's ''Manual of Parliamentary Practice,'' and was part of the Senate's rules until it was removed in 1806. The change in 1806 allowed unlimited debate.   

The right of unlimited debate in the Senate was rejected by the [[Founding Fathers]]. The Continental Congress adopted Rule 10. It followed the practice of the British Parliament and precedent allowed a simple majority to cut off debate by a motion for "the previous question." This rule was included in sections 8 and 9 of the rules adopted by the first Senate in 1789, was included in Jefferson's ''Manual of Parliamentary Practice,'' and was part of the Senate's rules until it was removed in 1806. The change in 1806 allowed unlimited debate.   

The fundamental issue to those who defend the right to filibuster has been the protection of minority rights.  The desire to weaken presidential influence over the upper chamber, not free speech, was instrumental in the decisions of 1826 and 1828 that gave the Senate the ultimate authority to discipline its members.{{fact}} The defeat of the 1856 amendment requiring a Senator to confine himself to the question under debate marked the beginning of over a century of unrestricted debate. The defense of lengthy debate by [[John C. Calhoun]] was a matter of senatorial courtesy, but for his successors it became an inalienable, abstract right.<ref> Richard R. Beeman, "Unlimited Debate in the Senate: the First Phase," ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1968 83(3): 419-434 </ref>

The fundamental issue to those who defend the right to filibuster has been the protection of minority rights.  The desire to weaken presidential influence over the upper chamber, not free speech, was instrumental in the decisions of 1826 and 1828 that gave the Senate the ultimate authority to discipline its members. The defeat of the 1856 amendment requiring a Senator to confine himself to the question under debate marked the beginning of over a century of unrestricted debate. The defense of lengthy debate by [[John C. Calhoun]] was a matter of senatorial courtesy, but for his successors it became an inalienable, abstract right.<ref> Richard R. Beeman, "Unlimited Debate in the Senate: the First Phase," ''Political Science Quarterly'' 1968 83(3): 419-434 </ref>

Before 1917 there was no provision for '''cloture''', or shutting off debate. In response to the successful filibuster of a bill to arm American merchant ships, the Senate adopted the two-thirds rule for cloture putting a halt to debate on an issue.

Before 1917 there was no provision for '''cloture''', or shutting off debate. In response to the successful filibuster of a bill to arm American merchant ships, the Senate adopted the two-thirds rule for cloture putting a halt to debate on an issue.

In May 2005, Republican leaders proposed what was called the "nuclear option" whereby filibusters would not be allowed on judicial nominations.  Democrats threatened to disrupt all proceedings on all issues if that happened. Senator [[John McCain]] led a bipartisan "Gang of 14" which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances".{{fact}}

In May 2005, Republican leaders proposed what was called the "nuclear option" whereby filibusters would not be allowed on judicial nominations.  Democrats threatened to disrupt all proceedings on all issues if that happened. Senator [[John McCain]] led a bipartisan "Gang of 14" which established a compromise that preserved the ability of senators to filibuster judicial nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances".

==Election of Scott Brown==

==Election of Scott Brown==

The January 2010 election of Massachusetts Senator [[Scott Brown]] is expected to change the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. However, it is not clear how soon after the election the term of incumbent Democrat [[Paul Kirk]] - in [[Ted Kennedy]]'s old seat - will expire. Chances are Democrats will stall, to gain [[partisan advantage]] in the upcoming vote over the "[[Obamacare]]" bill (see also [[national health insurance]]).{{fact}}

The January 2010 election of Massachusetts Senator [[Scott Brown]] is expected to change the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. However, it is not clear how soon after the election the term of incumbent Democrat [[Paul Kirk]] - in [[Ted Kennedy]]'s old seat - will expire. Chances are Democrats will stall, to gain [[partisan advantage]] in the upcoming vote over the "[[Obamacare]]" bill (see also [[national health insurance]]).

==Further reading==

==Further reading==