I’ll start by admitting that I don’t know enough about the rules of the United States Senate to explain how they changed the cloture (filibuster) rule from a sixty vote requirement to a simple majority for confirmation of Presidential nominees and did it on a simple majority vote. I am on record saying that I think the cloture rule is unconstitutional because it imposes a more restrictive threshold for legislative approval than is required by the Constitution itself so I am not shedding any tears over the change. I would like to discuss the democratic process more generally and how the rules of order play into that process.
We all have some knowledge of Robert’s Rules of Order even though we may not know much about how they work or how they came into being. Rules of order, in general terms, impose discipline and control over the democratic process. The value of the rules of order is most noticeable in the event that a proceeding starts to go awry because by following the rules of order it is possible to conduct business even if there is great disagreement over the business being conducted. General Henry M. Robert wrote in the Preface to his 1915 edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, “The object of Rules of Order is to assist an assembly to accomplish in the best possible manner the work for which it was designed. To do this it is necessary to restrain the individual somewhat, as the right of an individual, in any community, to do what he pleases, is incompatible with the interests of the whole. Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty.”
Each legislative body adopts their rules of order as part of the business done during the first meeting and sometimes the rules are modified so the rules of order are different from one legislative body to another. Most bodies will simply adopt a particular version of Robert’s Rules of Order as their rules of order. We also find the rules of order having different names from one body to the next even though they have the same function of keeping the democratic process under control and success oriented.
As I wrote “success oriented” I realized that it might be a loaded phrase in today’s political environment so here is what I mean by the phrase. For me, the definition of success, in any democratic process, involves a full and robust debate of the matter at hand followed by an informed vote of the members with the outcome being determined by the majority of those voting. It is always the case that a vote will determine winners and losers, but the debate is successful if the process produced a democratic result.
In my book, A Broken Sausage Grinder; Is Our Government Fundamentally Flawed?, I examine the current political dysfunction. One of my conclusions is that the dysfunction is the result of the way our elected officials are implementing the provisions of our Constitution and this is where the rules of order get thrust into our conversation because the rules of order are currently being used to obstruct the legislative process. One of my ongoing introspections revolves around the question of whether the rules of order should provide a means of complete obstruction of the legislative process. I have never found an argument to support the idea and I am confident our founding fathers would not have supported the concept either because it means that in the creation of our democracy we approve of a means to thwart it.
Another feature of our legislative process is the need for successful proceedings in both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives so the rules of order in both legislative bodies are part of this discussion. In the Senate, the main obstructive tactic involves the filibuster which results when a senator is recognized to speak on a matter under consideration and just keeps speaking. You see, in the Senate rules when a Senator is recognized by the chair, there is no time limit on the recognition – the Senator can share all the wisdom that he or she feels elevant to the matter including a complete reading of Dr. Seuss if the Senator thinks it important. The procedure for stopping a Senator’s speech is called cloture and it is only successful if sixty Senators vote to stop the speech.
Turning back to General Robert’s preface, “While it is important that an assembly has good rules, it is more important that it be not without some rules to govern its proceedings. It is much more important, for instance, that an assembly has a rule determining the rank of the motion to postpone indefinitely, than that it gives this motion the highest rank of all subsidiary motions except to lay on the table, as in the U.S. Senate; or gives it the lowest rank, as in the U.S. House of Representatives; or gives it equal rank with the previous question, to postpone definitely, and to commit, so that if one is pending none of the others may be moved, as under the old parliamentary law. This has been well expressed by one of the greatest of English writers on parliamentary law: “Whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the chairman or captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body.”
Just as I think our founding fathers would be appalled by the conduct of our current elected officials, the words of General Robert suggest that he would be dismayed as well. Today we see individuals proclaiming their rights as an American while ignoring their responsibilities to America. Today, the factions and their ideologues in elected office would rather destroy America than to see it work for others. We don’t have to look very hard to find one of the current ideologues all wrapped up in the American flag while spewing their message of greed and prejudice and obstructionism as the only way to save our country.
As an aside, they come from both sides of the aisle.
A town hall meeting leading up to the 2014 election would be a good place to ask the candidate about his or her thoughts on obstruction as a tactic in our American legislative process. Do they approve or disapprove and why? Their answer will speak volumes about their qualifications for office.
The Sausage Grinder is Broken – will you help to fix it?
Comment here or send an email: abrokensausagegrinder@comcast.net
More via Facebook: A Broken Sausage Grinder
More via Twitter: Hank Thomas
Watch on YouTube: A Broken Sausage Grinder