Evening star., 1953-01-01
The Political Mill
The Political Mill
FuIlucies Seen in Views
Of FiIibuster Opponents
Rule Of Unlimited Debate
Protects Senute Minorities
By Gould Lincoln


When the late President Franklin
d. Roosevelt did not like the opinions
handed down by the Supreme Court
OF the United States as constituted in
1887. he proposed to pack the court
with additional members. It was his
first major defeat in Congress. Now a
group Of Senators. unable because Of
the rule Of unlimited debate to force
through legislation objectit nable In the
extreme to very considerable number of
Senators, propose to declare the Senate
not continuing body-which 1t has
been since the beginning of the Gover,a"
ment. Another case Of "the end JUS
titles the means"
The rule Of unlimited debate in the
Senate, as amended now by the present
cloture rule which authorizes a motion
to close debate by constitutional two
thirds vote-which means GA Senators
must support it-has been regarded
as the chief buckler Of any minority.
It has served valuable purpoSe-and
1t undoubtedly will continue to do so,
unless this present oblique attack on
the character of the Senate succeeds.
II the Senate is not continuing body,
then its rules do not go over from
Congress to Congress but have to be
adopted at the opening of each new
Congress-just as those of the House
of Representatives. Under such cir
cumstances, it would be possible to
amend the rules by majority vote, at
the opening of each Congress.
This is what group Of Senators.
some Democrats and some Republicans,
are proposing, actuated by desire to
prevent an effective fllibuster against
civil rights legislation in the Upper
House. Among the leaders In this plan
to amend the rules at the outset of the
new Congress are Senators Lehman Of
New York. Humphrey of Minnesota and
Douglas of Illinois, Democrats, and SEN
ator Ives of New York, Republican.
Fight on Rule Adoption.
The rules of the Senate themselves
provide a method for amendment Of
the rules-but it requires a two-t thirds
vote to amend the rules. Further. the
rule of unlimited debate would make q
f1libuSter against a proposed rules
change possible. It is to get around
this situation that the fight is now
to be made to get vote on the adoption
of the Senate rules at the opening Of
each Congress.
Arguing that the Senate rules should
be adopted at the opening Of each new
Congress- Senator Ives points out that
Everything connected with the Senate
expires at the end of a Congress-except
the rules. He sees no justification for
this. It is his contention that the Sen
ate rules have gone over from Congress
to Congress merely because no one has
hitherto challenged the procedure; that
the rules have been continued by de-
fault. Not only does he insist that the
ming Of each Congress, but he contends
that they sadly need amendment In
many particulars.
The fact of the matter, however, Is
that two-thirds of the Senators continue
to hold Office at the close of each Con-
gresS, and do not have to be reelected.
This is the basis of the contention that
the Senate is a continuing body-and
1t has been so held by the courts, in
Guiding the Supreme Court of the United
States. If it is continuing body, its
governing rules need not necessarily
die.
Political Control Changes.
There is obviously difference when
it comes to the officers of the Senate.
Every two years, one-third of the Senate
membership comes up for election. These
elections may change entirely the
political control of the Senate, turning
a minority into majority. Under
these changing conditions, 1t becomes
necessary to elect new officers, so that
the party in control of the Senate can
conduct it's business in an orderly way.
The chairmen Of standing committees
are elected, also for the same reason.
at the opening of each Congress, and
SO are the other members of the
committees.
The plain truth of the matter seems
to be that Senators favoring, for ex-
ample, a compulsory FEPC law are
hoping by this attack on the rules and
the continuing life of the Senate to
achieve their end. Aside entirely from
the question whether the Senate is
continuing body, there is serious
threat in the effort to destroy the
present measure of freedom of debate.
If it succeeds, the power of the indi-
vidual Senator will fall like plummet,
and that of clique-or even a boss
would manifestly be enhanced. A
majority at all times could run rough
Shod over minority.