[Peace-discuss] Filibuster rule

[C. G. Estabrook]

Bob Illyes wrote:
> I don't think the Democrats could change the rules for ending
> debate, Carl, unless they have enough votes to do so under the
> current rules. Does anyone on this list have a more certain knowledge
> of this? I think that they could, however, filibuster military
> spending and stop it, which is what I thought Carl was proposing.

"The nuclear option, also called the 'constitutional option,' is an 
attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a 
filibuster by majority vote. Although it is not provided for in the 
formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 
parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The 
term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005...

"Because Senate rules require a 60-vote majority to end debate under 
most circumstances, a minority of 41 senators can prevent a final vote 
on most proposals, effectively defeating them. The practice of talking 
or debating on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place is 
known as a filibuster. A three-fifths vote, or a 60-vote majority, is 
required to approve cloture and end such debate...

"A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of 
its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular 
rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point 
of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the 
validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and 
reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the 
Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may 
choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new 
precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer 
governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of 
order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually 
different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point 
of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls 
Senate procedure thenceforth.

"The Constitutional Option is used in response to a filibuster or other 
dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an 
immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what 
circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, 
usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro 
tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of 
order. (The constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the 
presiding officer is bound by precedent.) A supporter of the filibuster 
may challenge the ruling by asking, 'Is the decision of the Chair to 
stand as the judgment of the Senate?' This is referred to as 'appealing 
from the Chair.' An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table 
the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A 
simple majority decides the issue. If the presiding officer's ruling is 
upheld, the Senate will then hold a vote on the substantive measure 
under consideration. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate..."

--from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option