Filibustering in the U.S. Senate
Powered By Xquantum

Filibustering in the U.S. Senate By Lauren C. Bell

Chapter 1:  Introduction
Read
image Next

This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.

cannot be considered a filibuster. It might properly be considered a hold, a threatened filibuster, or merely obnoxious behavior on the part of the senator, but it should not be counted as a filibuster, even if it has the effect of causing the majority leader to file for an end to debate while simultaneously calling up a measure.

This discussion demonstrates that, as Richard S. Beth, a Congressional Research Service specialist on Senate procedure, has noted:

A key difficulty in identifying filibusters is that ‘filibuster’ is not a technical procedural term; it does not apply explicitly or formally to any specific procedural action or set of actions. A wide variety of procedural actions can be used for dilatory purposes, but Senators need not take any specific ones in order to engage in a filibuster. Conversely, the same procedural action may be taken either with or without dilatory intent, so that use of a given procedure could indicate the presence of a filibuster on one occasion and yet not on another. (Beth 1995, 9–10)

It can be difficult to discern true filibusters from genuine efforts at perfecting legislation. The result is that even Beth, who has compiled the most definitive list of filibusters to date, has lamented that “the first thing we don’t know [about filibusters] … is how many there are” (Beth 1995, 9–10).

The Mechanics of Filibustering

Anyone who has worked in or studied the Senate knows that the four most important words in the Senate are “I ask unanimous consent.” Unanimous consent is the grease that permits the gears of Senate procedure to turn; if no one objects, whatever has been proposed will be the order of business. When the Senate majority leader asks for unanimous consent to bring up a measure for debate on the floor, he is hoping that no one will object to proceeding. Objections to unanimous consent delay the process of considering bills and other pending business because the majority leader must work to overcome the objection either through parliamentary techniques or negotiation.