Introduction to the Constitutional Option
Part of John Kyl’s speech on the US Senate floor on May 19, 2005
I will not examine each of these historical events in detail today. Instead, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a copy of the policy paper prepared by the Republican Policy Committee, which I chair, which examined each of these events in great detail.
There being no objection, the material was ordered To be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
The Senate's Power To Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote
INTRODUCTION
In recent months, there has been growing public interest in the Senate's ability to change its internal procedures by majority vote. The impetus for this discussion is a Senate minority's use of the filibuster to block votes on 10 judicial nominations during the 108th Congress. Until then, a bipartisan majority of Senators had worked together to guarantee that filibusters were not to be used to permanently block up-or-down votes on judicial nominations. For example, as recently as March 2000, Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom Daschle worked together to ensure that judicial nominees Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon received up-or-down votes, even though Majority Leader Lott and most of the Republican caucus ultimately voted against those nominations. But that shared understanding of Senate norms and practices--that judicial nominations shall not be blocked by filibuster --broke down in the 108th Congress.
This breakdown in Senate norms is profound. There is now a risk that the Senate is creating a new, 60-vote confirmation standard. The Constitution plainly requires no more than a majority vote to confirm any executive nomination, but some Senators have shown that they are determined to override this constitutional standard. Thus, if the Senate does not act during the 109th Congress to restore the Constitution's simple-majority standard, it could be plausibly argued that a precedent has been set by the Senate's acquiescence in a 60-vote threshold for nominations.
One way that Senators can restore the Senate's traditional understanding of its advice and consent responsibility is to employ the ``constitutional option''--an exercise of a Senate majority's power under the Constitution to define Senate practices and procedures. The constitutional option can be exercised in different ways, such as amending Senate Standing Rules or by creating precedents, but regardless of the variant, the purpose would be the same--to restore previous Senate practices in the face of unforeseen abuses. Exercising the constitutional option in response to judicial nomination filibusters would restore the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices governing judicial nominations, and guarantee that a minority does not transform the fundamental nature of the Senate's advice and consent responsibility. The approach, therefore, would be both reactive and restorative.
This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S. Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote. Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress. And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules after the constitutional option had been threatened, beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in 1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a longstanding feature of Senate practice.
This paper proceeds in four parts: (1) a discussion of the constitutional basis of the Senate's right to set rules for its proceedings; (2) an examination of past instances when Senate majorities acted to define Senate practices--even where the written rules and binding precedents of the Senate dictated otherwise; (3) an evaluation of how this history relates to the present impasse regarding judicial nomination filibusters; and (4) a clarification of common misunderstandings of the constitutional option. The purpose of this paper is not to resolve the political question of whether the Senate should exercise the constitutional option, but merely to demonstrate the constitutional and historical legitimacy of such an approach.
I will not examine each of these historical events in detail today. Instead, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a copy of the policy paper prepared by the Republican Policy Committee, which I chair, which examined each of these events in great detail.
There being no objection, the material was ordered To be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
The Senate's Power To Make Procedural Rules by Majority Vote
INTRODUCTION
In recent months, there has been growing public interest in the Senate's ability to change its internal procedures by majority vote. The impetus for this discussion is a Senate minority's use of the filibuster to block votes on 10 judicial nominations during the 108th Congress. Until then, a bipartisan majority of Senators had worked together to guarantee that filibusters were not to be used to permanently block up-or-down votes on judicial nominations. For example, as recently as March 2000, Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom Daschle worked together to ensure that judicial nominees Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon received up-or-down votes, even though Majority Leader Lott and most of the Republican caucus ultimately voted against those nominations. But that shared understanding of Senate norms and practices--that judicial nominations shall not be blocked by filibuster --broke down in the 108th Congress.
This breakdown in Senate norms is profound. There is now a risk that the Senate is creating a new, 60-vote confirmation standard. The Constitution plainly requires no more than a majority vote to confirm any executive nomination, but some Senators have shown that they are determined to override this constitutional standard. Thus, if the Senate does not act during the 109th Congress to restore the Constitution's simple-majority standard, it could be plausibly argued that a precedent has been set by the Senate's acquiescence in a 60-vote threshold for nominations.
One way that Senators can restore the Senate's traditional understanding of its advice and consent responsibility is to employ the ``constitutional option''--an exercise of a Senate majority's power under the Constitution to define Senate practices and procedures. The constitutional option can be exercised in different ways, such as amending Senate Standing Rules or by creating precedents, but regardless of the variant, the purpose would be the same--to restore previous Senate practices in the face of unforeseen abuses. Exercising the constitutional option in response to judicial nomination filibusters would restore the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices governing judicial nominations, and guarantee that a minority does not transform the fundamental nature of the Senate's advice and consent responsibility. The approach, therefore, would be both reactive and restorative.
This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S. Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote. Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress. And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules after the constitutional option had been threatened, beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in 1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a longstanding feature of Senate practice.
This paper proceeds in four parts: (1) a discussion of the constitutional basis of the Senate's right to set rules for its proceedings; (2) an examination of past instances when Senate majorities acted to define Senate practices--even where the written rules and binding precedents of the Senate dictated otherwise; (3) an evaluation of how this history relates to the present impasse regarding judicial nomination filibusters; and (4) a clarification of common misunderstandings of the constitutional option. The purpose of this paper is not to resolve the political question of whether the Senate should exercise the constitutional option, but merely to demonstrate the constitutional and historical legitimacy of such an approach.
<< Home