The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

What You Should Know About the "Nuclear Option" in the US Senate

2022-01-11T16:52:14.715Z


Democrats are pushing for voting rights legislation, which is why there is talk of using the "nuclear option."


The Significance of the Voting Rights Act in the US 1:04

(CNN) -

As Democrats push for Congress to pass voting rights legislation, there has been talk of using a process known as the "nuclear option."

It's a heated phrase that boils down to changing Senate rules to pass laws with a simple majority.

Senators need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate except change the rules - that requires just 51 votes.

Nuclear?

That sounds very serious for something as simple as a rule change.

Senators see themselves as part of the "largest deliberative body in the world."

It's a moot point, but to protect the minority party and make sure no one does anything without a full debate, Senate rules require 60 out of 100 senators to agree to vote to move toward the approval phase of the legislation.

In the fancy language they speak on Capitol Hill, limiting debate and proceeding with a vote is called "invoking closure."

advertising

  • ANALYSIS |

    Why Biden Didn't Do More to Prevent Voting Bill's Defeat

In reality, only 51 votes are needed to pass legislation.

But, due to procedural rules, 60 are required to invoke closure and get to the actual vote.

By requiring only 51 votes to limit debate, this would change the entire character of the chamber.

Rather than being forced to get the minority party - the Republicans right now - into the party, the majority party could approve anything for which it could get a simple majority.

The idea is that figuratively this would "blow up" the Senate.

For now, a simple majority Senate excites many Democrats who want to pass more legislation.

It also scares Republicans, whose strategy is to make everything stagnate on Capitol Hill.

The symbolism of a "nuclear option" heralds a kind of mutual assured destruction in the future, borrowing another term from the Cold War.

Democrats will not always control the Senate.

And when the Republicans are in charge, you can bet they'll get paid in the same coin.

Has the "nuclear option" ever been taken to change the rules?

Yes. We already live in a world of post-nuclear options when it comes to presidential appointments.

Most of those appointed by the president to the judiciary and executive often needed 60 votes for closure to be invoked in their cases.

Democrats changed the rules during the Obama administration and now only a simple majority is required to get votes on most appointments.

For their part, Republicans changed the rules for Supreme Court candidates during the Trump administration.

Is all this constitutional?

Of course.

The Constitution says nothing about Senate rules.

It puts that power in the hands of the senators.

"Each Chamber may determine the rules of its procedures", in accordance with Article 1, Section 5.

Senators are tasked with signing the candidates in Article 2, Section 2. But it doesn't say how exactly, which has led to a centuries-long debate on the matter.

This is what the Constitution says about the power of the president to appoint officials: "He will have power ... with the advice and consent of the Senate, he will appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court and all other officials. of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided herein, and which shall be established by law; but Congress may, by law, confer the appointment of the lower officials it deems appropriate to the president only, in the Courts of Law , or in the Heads of Department ".

  • Trump invokes "nuclear option" to end government shutdown

Where does the 60 vote threshold come from?

It's in the Senate rules.

Read the chapter on closing.

But the rules have changed over time.

Until 1949, for example, according to the Congressional Research Service, senators couldn't even move to limit debate (invoke closure) on appointments.

According to the Senate website, Henry Clay was the first senator to threaten nuclear legislation, back in 1841. Until 1975, it actually took 67 votes to overcome an obstructionist move.

The most famous examples occurred during the civil rights era, when Southerners from both parties blocked equal rights legislation.

It took 60 days of filibuster to find the votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What role does filibuster play in all of this?

Everyone seems to have a different definition of what an obstructionist is.

In pop culture, filibustering is reminiscent of Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," who talks for hours to block legislation he disagrees with.

These days, filibuster is a given.

When everyone realizes that there are not 60 votes to limit debate, senators usually don't spend much time debating.

They just keep going.

When a senator puts on an all-night speech, the outcome is often predetermined.

If the rules are changed and only a simple majority is required to limit debate, Republicans will still have other delaying tactics to employ.

They just couldn't block a majority of the votes entirely.

Why is this all coming to a head now?

More and more Democrats support the removal of obstructionism, at least in some circumstances.

Most of the important laws - tax cuts during the Trump administration and health care during the Obama administration - required finding a way around the obstructionist rules.

In those two cases, party leaders exploited budget rules.

But that's an imperfect solution, and it wouldn't work for voting rights, the issue about which most Democrats argue the rules are worth changing.

Democrats want to impose new national rules to protect voters' rights, while Republicans in key states are struggling to limit access to voting by mail and otherwise make it difficult to cast a vote.

But the consequences of the nuclear option would extend beyond voting rights.

You cannot go back from this measure.

That's why more moderate Democrats, like Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have yet to agree to pressing the nuclear button.

nuclear option

Source: cnnespanol

All news articles on 2022-01-11

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.