Changing Senate Rules or Procedures: The “Constitutional” or “Nuclear” Option Page: 2 of 14
14 pages.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Changing Senate Rules or Procedures:
The "Constitutional" or "Nuclear" Option
Summary
Reports indicate possible attempts to curtail the use of filibusters in the Senate,
perhaps in the 109th Congress. Some have suggested that proponents of this idea may
invoke something called the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option in Senate floor
procedure to try to end a filibuster without the need for 60 votes or to amend the
cloture rule (Rule XXII) itself. No set definition exists for the term "nuclear" or
"constitutional" in this context. Because the point of using such an option is to
achieve a goal by means lying outside the Senate's normal rules of procedure, it
would be impossible to list all the different permutations such maneuvers could
encompass. Several likely scenarios that fall into this category are described in this
report, followed by a discussion of the possible advantages and disadvantages of
using such an approach.
Opponents (and some supporters) of this kind of plan typically refer to it as the
"nuclear" option because of the potentially significant result for Senate operations
that could follow from its use. The Senate relies heavily on unanimous consent to
get its legislative work accomplished. It may be more difficult to achieve unanimous
consent in an environment where the minority feels it has lost some of its traditional
rights. Supporters of the concept of majority cloture argue that it is a "constitutional"
option because they will be making their argument based on a constitutional
prerogative or duty of the Senate.
One method for changing Senate procedures might involve declaring extended
debate on nominations dilatory, and thus, out of order. Another possibility is based
on the argument that, on the first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule
XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and thus can be changed by majority vote.
Under this argument, debate could be stopped by majority vote. A Senator would
move the adoption of a new rule or set of rules. The new rule or rules would be
subject to a majority vote, supporters argue, because the mechanics of cloture as set
out in Rule XXII, which requires a supermajority to invoke cloture and end debate,
would not yet apply and the Senate would be operating under general parliamentary
law. One variation would be a claim that on the opening day of a Congress a simple
majority could invoke cloture on the motion to take up a resolution that proposed a
rules change, or on the resolution itself. Again, this scenario would rest on the
proposition that Rule XXII was not yet in force and did not control action. Senators
also could seek to have the 60-vote threshold declared unconstitutional, either for
cloture in general, or only as it applies to Senate consideration of presidential
nominations, or perhaps a subset of such nominations, such as of federal judges.
This scenario might take place in at least two different ways. The presiding officer
might make a ruling from the chair, or a Senator could make a point of order from
the floor that the supermajority requirement for cloture is unconstitutional.
All these possible scenarios would require that one or more of the Senate's
precedents be overturned or interpreted otherwise than in the past.This report will be updated as events warrant.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Palmer, Betsy. Changing Senate Rules or Procedures: The “Constitutional” or “Nuclear” Option, report, November 1, 2005; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813015/m1/2/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.