Cloudy
27°
Cloudy
Hi 32° | Lo 24°
Grant Bosse

Grant Bosse: Shaheen is willing to ignore rules she doesn’t like

“They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” – John Adams, Massachusetts Gazette and the Boston Post-Boy and Advertiser, March 6, 1775.

When John Adams coined the phrase “a government of laws, and not of men,” he wasn’t writing about the United States, which wouldn’t declare its independence for another year, or adopt the present Constitution for 13 years after that. He was describing the monarchy of Great Britain, whose Parliament had gradually replaced the arbitrary power of kings and queens with the rule of law. I wonder how he would describe our republic, in which elected leaders willfully ignore laws they find inconvenient.

New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen certainly has no trouble ignoring the long-standing rules of the U.S. Senate, or at least threatening to do so for political gain. Despite a bipartisan agreement to advance several contentious nominations, Shaheen won’t rule out using the “nuclear option” if Republicans fail to rubber stamp any of President Obama’s nominations in the future.

Let’s step back a bit and reflect on how we got to the brink of nuclear metaphor in the world’s most deliberative body.

The U.S. Senate was designed to be a cautious, deliberate body as opposed to the rabble-rousing populists in the House of Representatives. Senators weren’t even directly elected at first, chosen by state legislatures in order to distance them from the passions of the mob.

Thomas Jefferson, quite the populist, was skeptical of the need for a bicameral legislature, and questioned George Washington over a cup of tea on the use of the

Senate.

“Why did you pour the tea into your saucer?”

“To cool it,” said Jefferson.

“Just so,” said Washington, “that is why we created the Senate. The Senate is the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool.”

That conversation wasn’t documented until 1850, and probably never happened, but I’d really like to believe it did.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 76 that the Senate appointment power would be “an excellent check upon the spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.”

We’ve built on the founders’ work, amending the Constitution to provide for the direct election of senators, but we’ve maintained the ability of each chamber to set its own rules. Because senators serve six-year terms, only a third turn over each session, though many incumbents are re-elected. Unlike the House, which reforms from scratch every two years, the Senate is a continuing institution, whose rules carry over until amended or replaced.

Those rules allow any senator to speak on any bill indefinitely, unless three-fifths of all Senators agree to limit debate. The act of extending debate to prevent a vote is known as a filibuster and the motion to limit debate is called cloture.

Few true filibusters

According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Senate has endured more filibusters in recent years than any time in history. He’s lying. Aside from Sen. Rand Paul’s marathon speech on drones earlier this year, the Senate has barely seen any filibusters.

What we have seen is a record number of cloture motions, as Reid tries to limit debate, often before it even begins. Reid’s failure to manage the Senate floor through the use of time agreements on controversial bills has ground the chamber to a halt.

Republicans had also prevented votes on several controversial Obama appointments, prompting Reid to threaten the use of the “nuclear option.” He and the Democrats would decide that Senate rules didn’t apply to them, and they could close debate with a simple majority.

This was a bad idea when Sen. Trent Lott threatened it in order to overcome Democratic objections to Bush judicial nominees, it’s a bad idea now, and it would be a bad idea if Republicans retake the Senate in 2014.

This week, the Senate reached an agreement to move ahead with several nominations if Obama withdrew two of them. Shaheen is happy with the deal, but won’t rule out scuttling Senate rules again.

“I am pleased that a bipartisan compromise was reached to end the gridlock over President Obama’s executive branch nominees. I’ve always believed that all presidents, regardless of party, should be allowed to fill their own cabinets. I hope today’s agreement helps lay the foundation for greater bipartisan cooperation on the many important issues facing the country,” Shaheen said in a statement released by her office on Tuesday.

The Senate’s consent to presidential appointments is a crucial check on executive power.

The ability to filibuster protects the Senate’s place as a deliberative body that respects the rights of the political minority, lest it become as susceptible to the whims of the majority as the House.

Shaheen is welcome to try to change the rules of the U.S. Senate. She should not be allowed to ignore them. I suspect she’ll recognize this wisdom if she ends up with 51 Republican colleagues in January 2015.

(Grant Bosse is editor of New Hampshire Watchdog, an independent news site dedicated to New Hampshire public policy. He is a senior fellow at the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.)

Legacy Comments9

Using one Senate rule, the right of the majority to change other Senate rules, is not the same as ignoring the rules. Legislative bodies frequently make changes to their operating rules, we celebrate tax lawyers who find little tricks in IRS rules to reduce our taxes, and lawyers are trained to use the idiosyncrasies of laws to make the best case for their clients. The only question here is, do Democrats want to remove a tool they have used in the past, and may want to use again, just so they can take it away from Republicans now? As they say, what goes around, comes around. In the old days, when Senators were less bound by party loyalty and more concerned about the what's best for their constituents, and the nation as a whole, the overuse of the filibuster wasn't much of a problem. Today it is, and long term it isn't an advantage to either party. I think majority rule in the Senate would be just fine. More votes would be taken, and we the people would see clearly just what our Senators are doing for and against us.

John, stop making sense. People will think you're lucid and, as a result, don't belong here.

This is a pretty weak attack against Shaheen. Grant Bosse chides Shaheen not for something she's done, but because she hasn't come out and said that she would unequivocally refuse to use the "nuclear option" that was originally proposed by Republicans when the shoe was on the other foot During George W Bush's presidency. I know Grant is a smart guy and very knowledgable about the political process. I expect him to present both sides of an argument but lately he's becoming more "selective" with facts presented in his columns. Now, as to the filibuster, it is Grant who is wrong about the number of times it's been envoked. A filibuster can be a "talking" filibuster like Rand Paul's or much more commonly a "silent" filibuster where a senator or group of senators merely THREATENS to filibuster. A cloture can be used to prevent a silent filibuster. This is what Harry Reid has been doing. The Senate has been bogged down by an unprecedented number of filibusters by Republicans and in response clotures by Democrats. Most notorious is Mitch McConnell's filibuster of his OWN legislation after he realized he might not like the outcomes of the vote on his bill. Senate Democrats are now trying to revise senate rules regarding filibuster and cloture to end the gridlock but as usual, Republicans are obstructing.

It is the democrat way. Ignore laws that they don't like. I can't wait to defeat Jeanne Jeanne the reckless spending machine in 2014.

Well, you got a long, long wait ahead Van. Shaheen is safe in 2014. The NHGOP has NO ONE to challenge her. And Kelly Ayotte's not a shoe-in in 2016 either.

Gen X you are funny. Shaheen is in trouble and the democrats trying to astro-turf Kelly Ayotte and failed big time. The Monitor looked like complete fools with their obvious efforts.

Exactly who does the GOP have to beat Shaheen?

democrats used nuclear option to pass ObamaKare. The slimy way ObamaKare was passed on a 100% democrat partisan vote was to use the "Reconciliation" route. "Reconciliation" requires unlimited amendments to be introduced. Democrats used the nuclear option to stop amendments. That is not a single statesman in the democrat party - 100% slime

Actually, the "nuclear option" can be used to pass presidential nominees that have been held up by filibusters. Reconciliation can only be used on matters dealing with budgets. Two different things.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.