Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

March 7,1975 Senate Votes Easier Cutoff Of Filibuster; Democrats change filibuster with 56 votes
Washington Post Archive ^ | March 8, 1975 | Spencer Rich

Posted on 05/18/2005 9:28:02 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded

The Senate approved a historic change in the filibuster rule last night after seven weeks of angry debate. It voted 56 to 27 to reduce the number of senators needed to cut off a filibuster from two-thirds of those present and voting to a permanent "constitutional" threefifths (60 senators).


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1975; 56votes; cary; constitutionaloption; democratnukereaction; democrats; filibuster; reidsnuclearreaction; rulechange
Can someone get this to Rush and Hannity. This is a clip off of the archives of the Washington Post, if anyone wants to buy the whole article for $3.95 have at it.

To institute a rule change it was supposed to take 67 votes at the time which was the filibuster rule. But they Democrats who were a 60 vote plus majority at the time. Also, 17 Senators didn't vote at all on such an important issue.

Can anyone get a roll call vote looked up and see who opposed, I'm sure Goldwater, Helms, and Allen from Alabama opposed. I'm sure Byrd, Kennedy, Biden, Inoway, and Leahy voted yes. Don't know who the 17 Senators who took a dive that allowed 2/3 approval.

1 posted on 05/18/2005 9:28:03 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Senate Votes Easier Cutoff Of Filibuster; Senate Passes Compromise Easing Cutoff of Filibusters
By Spencer Rich, Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post (1974-Current file). Washington, D.C.: Mar 8, 1975. pg. A1, 2 pgs

Document types: front_page
Section: GENERAL
ISSN/ISBN: 01908286
Text Word Count 1338
Document URL:


2 posted on 05/18/2005 9:29:04 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
The RATS will spin this as justifying their demand that even a vote for a Federal Judicial Nomination should require 60 votes to confirm. Nevertheless, it was a good find to show how they will change the rules anytime they are inconvenienced.
3 posted on 05/18/2005 9:33:37 PM PDT by Enterprise (Coming soon from Newsweek: "Fallujah - we had to destroy it in order to save it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

BTTT


4 posted on 05/18/2005 9:36:03 PM PDT by rlmorel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Good find.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 76 that the Senate's role is to refuse nominations only for ``special and strong reasons'' having to do with ``unfit characters.''

Please note the last two words "UNFIT CHARACTERS."


5 posted on 05/18/2005 9:39:18 PM PDT by Sun ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," Killary Clinton, pro-abort)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
To point out the obvious, 56/ 83 (56+27} = 67.5%

Apparently the abstainers were motivated from voting.

6 posted on 05/18/2005 9:40:20 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter

But the rule was you needed 67 votes to change the rules of the senate, not 2/3 of those who bother to vote as long as we have more than 50 vote in favor.


7 posted on 05/18/2005 9:54:01 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Thought you might want to read and share this.....


8 posted on 05/18/2005 10:05:41 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Cancel your NEWSWEEK subscriptions. If you don't have one write their advertisers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Google turned up this tid bit:


A Change in the Cloture Rule

The Democratic Party scored significant gains in the congressional elections of 1974. The large numbers of new Democrats elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives were in a reformist mood, and one of the things they wanted to reform was Congress itself.

In 1975 in the Senate, the number of votes required to cloture a filibuster was reduced from 2/3 to 3/5, from 67 votes to 60 votes if all senators were present and voting. It was believed that this lowered number of votes required for cloture would make it more difficult to sustain a filibuster in future debates, and the end result would be the Senate would have an "easier time" enacting civil rights bills.

This new cloture rule did not reduce the use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, however. In fact, if anything, it appeared to make the filibuster a more acceptable legislative weapon, even for non-southerners. Groups of senators began to filibuster non-civil rights bills, thus requiring the Senate leadership to produce a 3/5 vote or give up on the particular bill in question. Senators found filibusters to be a particularly effective way to kill bills they opposed late in the legislative session when there was little time remaining and the leadership was anxious to enact more important bills prior to adjournment.


http://faculty1.coloradocollege.edu/~bloevy/CivilRightsHistoryTwo/


9 posted on 05/18/2005 10:07:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Michael Medved today: "Dingey Harry was bloviating today about Jefferson and Washington chatting over coffee. Unbelievable silly story, but the real joke is that COFFEE WASN'T SERVED IN THE CONTINENTAL US until a hundred years later." (..rough paraphrase).


10 posted on 05/18/2005 10:07:37 PM PDT by steenkeenbadges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter
Thanks for the clarification.

This fact fits in nicely with the historical filibuster time line.

I have heard of a Senator recently mention this, so you know they will.

11 posted on 05/18/2005 10:16:09 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
Huge consequences.
12 posted on 05/18/2005 10:22:39 PM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steenkeenbadges

I don't know if Jefferson and Washington ever chatted over coffee, but coffee-drinking had become popular in Europe well before their time: Charles Dickens talks about Puritans in 17th-century England having their own coffee-houses, and coffee-drinking caught on in Vienna after the Turkish siege of 1683 (supposedly the Viennese found the coffee beans left behind by the Turks). I think coffee was one of the alternatives Americans turned to when they decided to boycott tea (because of the British tax on tea).


13 posted on 05/18/2005 10:23:28 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
That means all that was needed was a majority of the Whole!

Funny how Sheets, the Dean of the Senate (as opposed to the lunatic Dean of Vermont), conveniently forgot this!!!

(I'm sure he was going to bring it up, but Frist hasn't allowed him enough time).

14 posted on 05/18/2005 10:26:33 PM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

I would really like to know who those 17 were and do any remain there now.
Now why do I have a funny feeling that the kook mccain will be on that list?


15 posted on 05/18/2005 10:26:54 PM PDT by snuffy smiff (Jean Fraud Kerry-the Botox BoatWarrior,"oh no, aground again and huge riceberg approaching")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
On 2nd thought, IIRC the Chair made a ruling similar to the "Byrd option" that indeed only 83 truly constituted "all senators were present and voting."
16 posted on 05/18/2005 10:28:52 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steenkeenbadges
"Dingey Harry was bloviating today about Jefferson and Washington chatting over coffee."

Some of these nominees have been sitting in the "cooling saucer?" for 4 years!!

Senator Reid, stop your contradictory posturing. You're not interested in kooling these nominations, you're interested in killing these nominations. How about a little honesty?

17 posted on 05/18/2005 10:32:39 PM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

No, it was obviously a majority of the Whole Senate that was obviously necessary-----51 votes.. This needs to get out.


18 posted on 05/18/2005 10:34:27 PM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
I am looking for the actual vote and so far found a few of the usual suspects on the wrong side:

In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional."

Link

19 posted on 05/18/2005 10:36:09 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
it was obviously a majority of the Whole Senate that was obviously necessary-----51 votes

This site concurs.
"In 1975, Walter Mondale (Democrat-Minnesota) and James Pearson (Republican-Kansas) led the fight for a three-fifth's cloture rule using the "Constitutional option," meaning that they believed that debate over the Mondale-Pearson proposal could be brought to an end by a simple majority vote. Other Senators believed that debate over this cloture rule proposal could only be brought to an end by satisfying the cloture rule in effect from previous Senates: by winning the support of two-thirds of the Senate.

Senator Javits moved to "table" [defeat] Senator Mike Mansfield's point of order against the Mondale-Pearson cloture proposal because it was "self-executing" by demanding an immediate vote without satisfying the two-thirds cloture rule. Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, acting as presiding officer of the Senate, issued a ruling that if a majority of the Senate voted for Senator Javits's "tabling motion," the Senate could proceed immediately to a vote on the Mondale-Pearson cloture rule proposal. The Senate upheld the Mondale-Pearson "Constitutional option" on three separate occasions during the period from February 1975 through March 1975. After more parliamentary maneuvering, the Senate enacted the three-fifths cloture rule by a vote of 56 to 27 on March 7, 1975."

20 posted on 05/18/2005 10:37:17 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
Check your Larousse:

filibuster: from the French; "filbustier", n. meaning "pirate, freebooter, buccaneer, brigand."

21 posted on 05/18/2005 10:41:06 PM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

I think Rush has already talked about this.

This was the rule change in the 70's (submitted by Byrd?) that reduced the number of Senate votes needed to invoke cloture from 2/3 to 3/5.


22 posted on 05/18/2005 10:43:58 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (In God We Trust. All Others We Monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
To change the bold on your excellent quote:

In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional.""

23 posted on 05/18/2005 10:46:27 PM PDT by cookcounty ("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
"The Senate approved a historic change in the filibuster rule last night after seven weeks of angry debate. It voted 56 to 27 to reduce the number of senators needed to cut off a filibuster from two-thirds of those present and voting to a permanent "constitutional" three-fifths (60 senators)."

This change was even more extreme than it seems at first glance... it did not merely change the cloture threshold from 67 to 60... it changed it from a RELATIVE PERCENTAGE to an ABSOLUTE PERSENTAGE!

Note the phrase "two-thirds of those present and voting". That meant that cloture could be voted by as few as 34 Senators... two-thirds of the official Senate Quorum of 51 Senators!!! They didn't LOWER THE BAR... they RAISED IT!

The Washington Post was spinning the truth even in 1975. This article should read:

"The Senate approved a historic change in the filibuster rule last night after seven weeks of angry debate. It voted 56 to 27 to INCREASE the number of senators needed to cut off a filibuster from two-thirds of those present and voting, (34 senators of the Senate's quorum of 51), to a permanent "constitutional" three-fifths (60 senators)."

24 posted on 05/18/2005 11:00:19 PM PDT by Swordmaker (tagline now open, please ring bell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steenkeenbadges
until a hundred years later." (..rough paraphrase).

The Northern and Southern Armies ran on Coffee during the Civil War, hardly 100 years after Washington & Jefferson.

25 posted on 05/18/2005 11:07:49 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

56+27=83

[56/83]= 67.4698%

So sorry but you have the wrong example. Apparently what happened was that the rule was changed by a majority vote and then the Senate went back and fixed it up with a revote to get the two-third vote.

I don't think their is enough good will left in the Senate to do that this time.


26 posted on 05/18/2005 11:14:24 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b.crinton

McCain was a POW in 73,Stayed in the Navy til 81, and was first elected to the Senate in 85.


27 posted on 05/18/2005 11:22:02 PM PDT by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon Turtle Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane

*keep


28 posted on 05/19/2005 3:10:22 AM PDT by JesseJane (Close the Borders. No Amnesty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded

Rush talked about this this week. The change from 67 votes to 60 rule change.


29 posted on 05/19/2005 3:13:09 AM PDT by listenhillary (If it ain't broke, it will be after the government tries to fix it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Cloture_Rule.htm

Good information about Wilson's push to create a filibuster law where unending debate would end.
30 posted on 05/19/2005 3:23:38 AM PDT by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

Meeky, have you seen this??????


31 posted on 05/19/2005 5:52:02 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Give Byrd the Byrd option now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

And for those freepers who have been screaming for a "real filibuster" this is an important point as to why it hasn't happened since 1975.

The minority party only needs to keep one person in the Senate now, whereas the majority party needs to keep at least 50 present during a filibuster. That's definitely a greater hurdle for the majority party.

With the old rules, the minority party always had to keep at least 2/3 of members present, which at 50 means at least 26 to keep it from passing. That represents a greater hardship. In addition, it allowed the majority party to have fewer people there and still maintain a quorum.


32 posted on 05/19/2005 6:03:00 AM PDT by mongrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: b.crinton
Now why do I have a funny feeling that the kook mccain will be on that list?

McStain wasn't elected to Congress until 1982 and won his Senate seat in 1986. In those days Arizona had a *real conservative* Senator, Barry Goldwater. :)

33 posted on 05/19/2005 7:44:41 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kjenerette

...for reading.


34 posted on 05/19/2005 7:52:10 AM PDT by Van Jenerette (Our Republic...if we can keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

in that case sir, you have my sympathies


35 posted on 05/19/2005 9:10:15 AM PDT by snuffy smiff (Jean Fraud Kerry-the Botox BoatWarrior,"oh no, aground again and huge riceberg approaching")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952; TheEaglehasLanded; PhilDragoo; devolve; Grampa Dave; yall
No. First I've heard of this.

Thanks.


36 posted on 05/19/2005 9:45:12 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

You're right on the money...that's the part that often gets overlooked. It means the margin between quorum and overrule is slim...allowing dissenters to walk out to avoid cloture.

The more philosophical import of this is that it provides DISincentive to continuing discussion and debate. Our Senate is supposed to be deliberative, but this rule change made it a smart move to leave the Senate to get your way.


37 posted on 05/20/2005 7:39:59 PM PDT by Gondring (Pretend you don't know me...I'm in the WPPFF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
Read these, ESPECIALLY the Gold and Gupta article.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf

RS20801 - December 11, 2002 - Cloture Attempts on Nominations
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20801.pdf

RL30360 - March 28, 2003 - Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf

RL32843 - March 28, 2005- "Entrenchment" of Senate Procedure and the "Nuclear" Option
http://www.afj.org/judicial/crsnuclear.pdf

RL31948 - March 29, 2005 - Evolution of Senate's Role in Nomination/Confirmation
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/JudNom-History.pdf

RL32684 - April 5, 2005 - Changing Senate Rules - The "Nuclear" Option
http://www.andrewhyman.com/crs.pdf

38 posted on 05/20/2005 7:47:20 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mongrel
With the old rules, the minority party always had to keep at least 2/3 of members present, which at 50 means at least 26 to keep it from passing.

You may misunderstand the cloture process, which is the general subject of the topic article. The cloture vote is scheduled at a time certain. It is impossible to "spring it" using surprise. Actually, all votes in the Senate are scheduled using either unanimous consent or cloture.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm <-- The Cloture Rule

39 posted on 05/20/2005 7:53:47 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

RULE VI
QUORUM - ABSENT SENATORS MAY BE SENT FOR

  1. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

  2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave.

  3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.

  4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule06.htm

40 posted on 05/20/2005 7:59:28 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Thanks. :)

bump! bump! bump!


41 posted on 05/21/2005 4:09:39 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson