ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

[From the Hartford Times of January 7, 1957]

DESERVED TO PASS

The Senate rule that has permitted unlimited debate has long ago completely outlived its usefulness but once again reform has been defeated. Even a bipartisan move could not bury it. By a vote of 55 to 38, the Senate, in its first formal acts of this new session, decided to retain the outdated right to filibuster a bill to death.

Behind this struggle at this time is the civil rights issue which lined up all the Southern Senators against any change in the Senate rules. Other Senators had other reasons. Senators Bush and Purtell were both on the side of needed reform. Mr. Bush has labored long and vigorously against the filibuster practice.

The challenge of the power of Senate minorities to block action on legislation by the filibuster-the tactic of dilatory debate to prevent a vote was doomed to failure at the start.

Now that the rules fight has ended, according to word quietly passed in the cloakrooms, the leaders will start negotiations to bring forward civil rights bills that should satisfy liberal elements of the party without bringing on an unbreakable filibuster.

But for the time being, at least, advocates of a change in the filibuster rule settled for an opportunity, through a round of speeches, to stage an orderly demonstration against what they called minority rule. In so doing, they redeemed a plank in the 1956 Democratic platform that pledged the party to make an effort to modify the filibuster rule.

The current effort stems from the fact that all past attempts to get advanced civil rights bills through the Senate have been blocked by filibustering southern-ers. All moves to invoke cloture, or limitation of debate, also have failed when such legislation was at stake.

Under the present rule, 64 Senators, or two-thirds of the entire membership, must approve a cloture motion if debate is to be limited. Some Senators seeking a change favor cloture by a simple majority of those voting. Others are willing to settle for either a majority of the entire Senate 49 or a two-thirds majority of those voting.

This issue will continue to assert itself until it is settled right. There must come an end to minority dictatorship.

[From the Denver Post of January 8, 1957]

THE FIGHT GOES ON

The significance of last week's vote on the Senate filibuster can be understood only when it is compared with two other votes on the same issue in recent years. In 1949, the filibuster rule as it now stands was approved in the Senate by a vote of 63 to 23. In 1953, the vote to table a proposed change in the rule was 70 to 21.

Last Friday, the vote to table a proposal for a rule change was 55 to 38. In other words, opposition to the filibuster which could count only 23 adherents 8 years ago and only 21 adherents 4 years ago now has 38 supporters and after Senator-elect Javits, of New York, takes his seat the count probably will be 39. In 1953 there were 15 opponents of the filibuster rule on the Democratic side of the Senate and only 5 on the Republican side. This year there were 21 Democrats who favor a more liberal rule and 17 Republicans.

Friday's rollcall showed 12 Senators voting in opposition to the position they took in 1953. Of the 12, one was a Democrat, Senator Green, of Rhode Island. Four years ago he voted to consider a filibuster rule change. This time he voted to table consideration of any change.

Eleven Republicans who voted in favor of the filibuster in 1953 voted this time in favor of considering a rule change. The switch of those Republican Members was largely responsible for the better showing the antifilibuster forces were able to make this time.

The 11 Republicans who have adopted a new and more liberal view on Senate rules are Bush and Purtell of Connecticut, Cooper of Kentucky, Payne and Smith of Maine, Beall of Maryland, Potter of Michigan, Thye of Minnesota, Smith of New Jersey, and Aiken and Flanders of Vermont.

It is interesting to note that 19 Members of the Senate had not previously had the opportunity to vote on the filibuster question. Ten of them voted to consider

a change and 9 voted to table the motion which might have led to a change. Thus, among new Senators sentiment is slightly in favor of new rules.

Friday's vote will encourage antifilibuster foes to make new assaults on phases of the complicated Senate rules. The first attack is expected to take the form of a resolution declaring that a present rule, which permits unlimited debate on a proposal to change any rule, violates the part of the Constitution which says "each House (of Congress) may determine the rules of its proceedings."

Vice President Nixon has already expressed the opinion that unlimited debate would be unconstitutional if it prevented the Senate from voting to determine its rules. Foes of the filibuster believe if they can knock out unlimited debate on rule changes they will have won an important step toward more effective limitations on the debate on bills.

In any event, they aren't giving up and even see a good chance to win.

[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of January 8, 1957]

HOW THE STATES STOOD

Not often is a rollcall vote more in need of study than that by which the Senate tabled the resolution of 31 Senators for revising the rules so as to bring filibusters under reasonable control. For not often is analysis of performance in the Senate so illuminating.

The vote for tabling was 55 to 38 and counting in the 2 absentees favoring the change the actual division of the Senate was 55 to 40. Thus the only Senate seat not accounted for was that of Senator-elect Javits who is still Attorney General of New York. Had he been sworn in he undoubtedly would have raised to 41 the total in favor of restricting filibusters.

As the vote was so much closer than the 70-to-21 division for changing the rule 4 years ago, it is important to know which States blocked progress this time. Here is how the States stood in the division last Friday:

BOTH SENATORS FOR TABLING

Southern States

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, and Virginia.

Northern and other States

Arizona, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.

BOTH SENATORS AGAINST TABLING

Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

SENATORS SPLIT ON TABLING

California, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

This breakdown by States makes it very clear that the filibuster rule would have been thrown in the ashcan had it not been for the many Republican votes that supported the southerners. The vote of the Democratic Senators from Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, for example, is explainable if not defensible. What about the two votes cast by each of the pairs of the Republican Senators from Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota, and Utah? Why should these 14 GOP votes have been cast on the side of the filibusterers?

A breakdown by parties is as instructive as the breakdown by States. Twentyeight Republicans were for tabling and 18 were against tabling. The Democrats were more evenly divided-27 for tabling to 22 against it. Again the record shows that the rule change lacked on the GOP side the support it needed to pass.

Are these Republicans one with the Dixiecrats? Or do they not believe what many GOP leaders have been saying about civil rights? Or are they willing

to deprive thousands of American citizens of equal rights in order to embarrass the Democratic Party in Congress?

Whatever the answer, the people of Missouri can be grateful that the full force of this State spoke in the Senate, through the votes of Senators Hennings and Symington, on the side of reason. The Illinois delegation was one of those that divided. Senator Douglas was a leader in the fight for the change. Senator Dirksen, who rode President Eisenhower's coattails last November, voted with the southern filibusterers.

We hope the facts behind this rollcall are told to newspaper readers all over the country.

[From the Des Moines Register of January 7, 1957]

THE FILIBUSTER SURVIVES

The attempt to liberalize the Senate's filibuster rule, through adoption of new rules at the start of the session, has failed. But it was a glorious failure which points up the great gains that have been made by those who want legislation to guarantee equal rights to the 17 million American Negroes.

The 38 Senators
But not all the

The vote on the question of adopting new rules was 55 to 38. who favored adopting new rules want civil-rights legislation. 55 Senators who voted against adopting new rules are in favor of segregation of Negroes or of discrimination against them. They voted as they did for a variety of reasons.

Unquestionably a majority of the Senators would vote, if a straight-out test came, for civil-rights legislation. But they won't get the chance to do this. Southern Senators won't let such legislation come to a vote. They can block a vote by filibustering-by talk, talk, talk. The Senate could limit this talk, by invoking its present cloture rule. But under this rule, it takes the vote of twothirds of the Senators-64 out of 96 Members-to limit debate and end a filibuster. So 33 Senators can block action on civil-rights legislation.

The effort was made to change this cloture rule at the start of the session because it's almost impossible to do so later. The cloture rule cannot be invoked in any debate on changing the rules. So only a handful of Senators can filibuster to death an attempt to change the cloture rule.

Friday's vote was on whether the Senate could change its rules at the beginning of the session. If the vote had been favorable, then the Senate could have eased the cloture rule and civil-rights legislation could have been enacted. The great gain which has been made by those who feel that it is imperative to change the cloture rule is shown by comparing Friday's vote, 55 to 38, with the 70 to 21 vote on the same question in 1953. A switch of nine votes would have changed the outcome this year. We predict there will be many more switches than that in the next 2 years.

Some Senators who voted against changing the rules Friday did so because of: (1) their concept of the Senate as a continuing body for which the rules hold hold over from session to session; (2) their respect for tradition; or (3) a desire to support their party leaders (both Republican Leader Knowland and Democrat Leader Johnson opposed changing the rules).

We regret that Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper, of Iowa, was one of those voting against changing the rules but recognize that this doesn't indicate any anti-civil-rights viewpoint. He voted that same way in 1953 and so did Senator Guy Gillette.

Senator Tom Martin of Iowa deserves praise for his vote in favor of changing the rules. We believe his vote reflects the sentiment of most Iowans.

The opinion which Vice President Richard Nixon gave with respect to Senate rules set a precedent which may speed victory for those advocating civil-rights legislation. His opinion seems to us to have been an enlightened and sensible

one.

He held that the Senate is a continuing body under the Constitution. He also held that rules of the previous Congress remain in effect unless the new Congress decides otherwise. But he believes that the Constitution gives the Senate the right to decide otherwise to adopt new rules or change rules at the beginning of a session.

"The Senate should not be bound by a provision in those previous rules which denies the membership of the Senate the power to exercise its constitutional right to make its own rules," said Nixon's opinion.

The Senate didn't go along with Nixon. But it was a narrow escape for the South. The handwriting is on the wall. It won't be possible much longer

for a small minority, through rules and technicalities, to thwart the will of a vast majority of the people.

[From the Washington Post of January 5, 1957]

MR. NIXON'S RULING

Vice President Nixon has presented a very interesting opinion on the highly controversial rule 22 that may ultimately break the logjam over the filibuster in the Senate. Insofar as rule 22 denies a majority in the Senate the right to adopt the rules under which it desires to proceed, the Vice President concluded, it is unconstitutional. This opinion will lend powerful support to the drive to upset the existing practice of unlimited debate on any rule change, even though the liberals trying to upset rule 22 lost their fight yesterday.

Mr. Nixon's ruling stems from the fact that the Constitution gives the Senate the unqualified right to change its rules. The Vice President contends, with convincing logic, that this is a continuing right. It cannot be denied to the Senate of 1957 because the Senate of 1884 adopted standing rules which have remained in effect since that date, with various amendments. Section 3 of the amendment adopted in 1949 says that the very restrained cloture procedure set up to limit debate on legislation shall not apply to any proposal to change the standing rules of the Senate.

The effect of this, the Vice President says, is to deny a majority of the Senate the right to make new rules. It is at this point that sharp controversy arises. To be sure, the existence of rule 22 makes it impossible for a majority to adopt new rules unless they wear out a filibuster. Perhaps that makes it unconstitutional, but it is interesting to note that the situation is the same as it would be if the Senate were meeting for the first time without any rules.

A more important point is that, if rule 22 is unconstitutional, only the Senate can remove this unconstitutionality. Mr. Nixon says that the old rules will remain in effect until the Senate changes them, "with the exception that the Senate shall not be bound by any provision of those previous rules which denies the membership*** the power to exercise its constitutional right to make its own rules." But the Senate itself has to be the judge of whether this right to make its own rules has been infringed, and if it should so decide the Senate would have to apply its own remedy. It is not to be supposed that any court will tell the Senate that it is acting unconstitutionally in an area which the Constitution leaves so completely to senatorial control.

As a practical matter, then the Senate will soon or late have to face the issue and break a filibuster on rules unless an amicable agreement can be reached. The Vice President has not resolved the controversy; he has merely added an additional argument against rule 22-that one part of it is unconstitutional. It remains for the Senate to agree upon a reasonable amendment of the rule-such as limitation of debate on all business before the Senate (including amendment of the rules) by a two-thirds vote of those present, as this newspaper has previously suggested. The alternative would be a prolonged fight which again might prove inconclusive.

[From the St. Louis Globe Democrat of January 7, 1957]

THE FILIBUSTER: ITS DAYS NUMBERED

The filibuster rule in the Senate is still hale and hearty, but it came much closer to getting the ax than anyone expected. Before the issue came to a vote, foes of the filibuster estimated they could count on the support of only 32 Senators-at most.

But when the ballots were counted, 38 Senators voted with them. Two other Senators who were absent announced they too would have voted against the filibuster if they had been on the floor of the Senate.

This time, the antifilibuster forces went down to defeat by a vote of 55 to 38. Four years ago, a similar proposal was defeated by a vote of 70 to 21.

This shows a marked change in the Senate's attitude toward the filibuster rule. The big shift has come on the part of GOP Senators.

In 1953, under the leadership of Senator Taft, only five Republican Senators supported the move to kill the filibuster. Forty-one, including Senator Taft, voted to keep it alive. This time, 17 GOP Senators voted against the filibuster.

This big GOP switch in favor of less restrictive Senate rules undoubtedly was influenced by the stand Vice President Nixon took. By virtue of his office, Nixon presides over the Senate.

At the start of the debate, he stated that, in his opinion, the foes of the filibuster were perfectly correct in arguing that the Senate can adopt new rules at any time by a simple majority vote. And that could include a rule making it easy to choke off unlimited debate the filibuster.

This is the same line of reasoning that the leaders of the antifilibuster move, like Senator Clinton Anderson, New Mexico Democrat, have followed. Vice President Nixon took a clear-cut stand with them.

In Missouri, both Senator Hennings and Senator Symington voted with the antifilibuster forces. The Illinois delegation was split, with Senator Douglas, Democrat, against the filibuster. Senator Dirksen, Republican, voted in favor of tabling Senator Anderson's motion to proceed with the consideration of new rules.

Although the filibuster rule still stays on the Senate's book, this latest vote on the issue indicates that its days are numbered.

[From the Hartford Times of January 8, 1957]

WORTH ANOTHER TEST

The effort in the Senate to curb filibustering has met with me rebuff but another effort will be made to change the rules which have given a minority dictatorial power. Advocates of a change, among whom Senator Bush has been a steadfast leader, lately joined by Senator Purtell, see an opening for a second test of strength in this session.

The recent vote was 55 to 38 against changing the rules. Senators Douglas, Humphrey, and Knowland have each introduced a compromise motion of like import. They propose that a two-thirds majority vote of 64 be required to end debate during the first 3 weeks that a bill is under discussion but that, thereafter, a simple majority of 49 could impose cloture.

The new plan was also expected to include an attempt to have Vice President Nixon declare a section of the present Senate debate rules unconstitutional. Mr. Nixon ruled on Friday that each Senate has the constitutional right to draft its own rules. Opponents of the change, however, argued successfully that the Senate is a continuing body whose rules carry over from session to session and can be changed only by a two-thirds vote.

At issue is a section of Senate rule XXII that prohibits the limitation of debate when the Senate is debating a motion to take up a bill. The rule further provides that once a bill has been taken up, a vote of 64 of the 96 Senators is necessary to impose the limitation.

This fight on the rules issue will determine whether civil-rights legislation has a chance in this session. Heretofore, southern Senators have been able to talk legislation to death by taking so much time that the Senate had to drop the bills and take up other matters. If a compromise or other tactic can remove this dictatorial power of a minority, the effort should be made.

[From the Des Moines Register of January 8, 1957]

THE FILIBUSTER AND MAJORITY RULE

The second round of the filibuster fight is getting underway with a proposal by Republican Minority Leader William Knowland to make it easier to limit debate in the Senate.

Knowland's proposal is to require a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting in order to cut off debate. The present rule requires agreement of two-thirds of the entire Senate, or 64 Members, before debate can be limited.

A Wall Street Journal editorial reprinted on this page today, which defends the present rule, notes that a two-thirds vote is commonly required in legislative proceedings. However, the two-thirds vote needed to override a veto, to impeach an officer, to propose a constitutional amendment, or to ratify a treaty are all twothirds of those present and voting. The preesnt two-thirds rule on limiting debate imposes a far tougher requirement.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »