Lex Majoris Partis: How the Senate Can End the Filibuster on Any Day by Simple Majority Rule

By Amar, Akhil Reed | Duke Law Journal, April 2014 | Go to article overview

Lex Majoris Partis: How the Senate Can End the Filibuster on Any Day by Simple Majority Rule


Amar, Akhil Reed, Duke Law Journal


INTRODUCTION

Though I never knew Professor Brainerd Currie--he died when I was just a lad--I did know and admire his son, Professor David Currie, who passed away in 2007. I was especially impressed by the younger Currie's sustained interest in congressional constitutionalism (1)--that is, in various constitutional issues that have arisen in Congress and that have often involved special rules and procedures of Congress itself. In the tradition of the younger Professor Currie, I propose to use this hour, as the 2013 Currie Lecturer, to address one of the most important contemporary issues of congressional constitutionalism: the Senate filibuster.

In this hour I shall argue that, contrary to what many senators say and what some of them might even believe, the Senate may eliminate current filibuster practice on any day it chooses, and may do so by a simple majority vote. My main argument today reprises material from my recent book, America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By, and I am particularly grateful that the Duke Law School has kindly arranged for copies of this book to be given to the students in attendance today. In a brief Coda to my main argument, I shall offer additional elaboration, placing my views in the context of recent events on Capitol Hill and explaining how my proposed approach intersects with longstanding arguments about whether the U.S. Senate is or is not a "continuing body."

I.

Multimember institutions, such as the House, the Senate, and the Court, can do nothing--nothing at all!--unless certain basic social-choice rules are in place within these institutions. Crucially, there must exist master rules that determine how many votes within each institution will suffice to achieve certain results. Yet the written Constitution does not textually specify the master voting rule that operates inside these three chambers. Happily, two centuries of actual practice make clear that the bedrock constitutional principle within each is simple majority rule.

Some senators today, however, think otherwise. They think that the Senate's current filibuster system cannot be abolished by a simple majority vote. They should think again, for they have misread America's Constitution, written and unwritten. To see why, let's first canvas the internal voting rules and deliberation protocols that apply within the Supreme Court and the House of Representative and then use the evidence and insights generated by this canvas to analyze the modern Senate filibuster.

The Constitution explicitly provides for a Chief Justice, but does not specify his role, except as the official who chairs presidential impeachment trials. Perhaps the Chief's most important Court role, established by Court tradition, involves his power to assign opinions. Whenever he finds himself in the initial majority after oral argument, he decides which Justice shall take the lead in trying to compose an opinion on behalf of the Court. Of course, he may opt to assign the opinion-writing power/duty to himself, as John Marshall did in most important cases of his day, and as Earl Warren did in landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Reynolds v. Sims.

Thanks to the necessary-and-proper clause, Congress has also vested the Chief Justice with sundry administrative and supervisory responsibilities for the federal judiciary as a whole, but none of these congressional statutes has done much to clarify the Chief's authority within the Supreme Court itself. And while Congress has defined the jurisdiction of the Court and has enacted various rules of evidence and procedure for litigants who come before the Justices, federal lawmakers have opted to leave a great deal of the internal protocol among the Justices to be worked out by the Justices themselves. (2)

But by what voting rule? While the written Constitution left the matter unspecified, four interrelated factors pointed to simple majority rule as the master norm among the Justices, at least in the absence of some contrary protocol prescribed by Congress.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Lex Majoris Partis: How the Senate Can End the Filibuster on Any Day by Simple Majority Rule
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.