{ "id": "RL32684", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL32684", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 309497, "date": "2005-11-01", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:28:50.442029", "title": "Changing Senate Rules or Procedures: The \"Constitutional\" or \"Nuclear\" Option", "summary": "Reports indicate possible attempts to curtail the use of filibusters in the Senate, perhaps in the\n109th\nCongress. Some have suggested that proponents of this idea may invoke something called the\n\u201cnuclear\u201d or \u201cconstitutional\u201d option in Senate floor procedure to try\nto end a filibuster without the\nneed for 60 votes or to amend the cloture rule (Rule XXII) itself. No set definition exists for the\nterm \u201cnuclear\u201d or \u201cconstitutional\u201d in this context. Because the point\nof using such an option is to\nachieve a goal by means lying outside the Senate\u2019s normal rules of procedure, it would be\nimpossible\nto list all the different permutations such maneuvers could encompass. Several likely scenarios that\nfall into this category are described in this report, followed by a discussion of the possible advantages\nand disadvantages of using such an approach.\n \n Opponents (and some supporters) of this kind of plan typically refer to it as the\n\u201cnuclear\u201d option\nbecause of the potentially significant result for Senate operations that could follow from its use. The\nSenate relies heavily on unanimous consent to get its legislative work accomplished. It may be more\ndifficult to achieve unanimous consent in an environment where the minority feels it has lost some\nof its traditional rights. Supporters of the concept of majority cloture argue that it is a\n\u201cconstitutional\u201d option because they will be making their argument based on a\nconstitutional\nprerogative or duty of the Senate.\n \n One method for changing Senate procedures might involve declaring extended debate on\nnominations dilatory, and thus, out of order. Another possibility is based on the argument that, on\nthe first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply,\nand thus can be changed by majority vote. Under this argument, debate could be stopped by majority\nvote. A Senator would move the adoption of a new rule or set of rules. The new rule or rules would\nbe subject to a majority vote, supporters argue, because the mechanics of cloture as set out in Rule\nXXII, which requires a supermajority to invoke cloture and end debate, would not yet apply and the\nSenate would be operating under general parliamentary law. One variation would be a claim that\non the opening day of a Congress a simple majority could invoke cloture on the motion to take up\na resolution that proposed a rules change, or on the resolution itself. Again, this scenario would rest\non the proposition that Rule XXII was not yet in force and did not control action. Senators also\ncould seek to have the 60-vote threshold declared unconstitutional, either for cloture in general, or\nonly as it applies to Senate consideration of presidential nominations, or perhaps a subset of such\nnominations, such as of federal judges. This scenario might take place in at least two different ways. \nThe presiding officer might make a ruling from the chair, or a Senator could make a point of order\nfrom the floor that the supermajority requirement for cloture is unconstitutional. \n \n All these possible scenarios would require that one or more of the Senate\u2019s precedents\nbe\noverturned or interpreted otherwise than in the past.\n \n This report will be updated as events warrant.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32684", "sha1": "873ff628974be284ff9f8f4018c670da835833c5", "filename": "files/20051101_RL32684_873ff628974be284ff9f8f4018c670da835833c5.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32684", "sha1": "fdd36d8724936a3b586fb323e3201c45411befc6", "filename": "files/20051101_RL32684_fdd36d8724936a3b586fb323e3201c45411befc6.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7428/", "id": "RL32684 2005-05-26", "date": "2005-05-26", "retrieved": "2005-10-18T14:05:25", "title": "Changing Senate Rules: The \"Constitutional\" or \"Nuclear\" Option", "summary": "This report indicates possible attempts to curtail the use of filibusters in the Senate, perhaps in the 109th Congress. Some have suggested that proponents of this idea may invoke something called the \u201cnuclear\u201d or \u201cconstitutional\u201d option in Senate floor procedure to try to end a filibuster without the need for 60 votes or to amend the cloture rule (Rule XXII) itself. This report presents several possible scenarios that would require one or more of the Senate\u2019s precedents be overturned or interpreted otherwise than in the past.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20050526_RL32684_b134884571c2583752fcfc3c77eb7e271ddf4aa3.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20050526_RL32684_b134884571c2583752fcfc3c77eb7e271ddf4aa3.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Senate rules and procedure", "name": "Senate rules and procedure" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc811205/", "id": "RL32684_2005Apr05", "date": "2005-04-05", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Changing Senate Rules: The \u201cConstitutional\u201d or \u201cNuclear\u201d Option", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20050405_RL32684_d5dc4dbd251c848f1b8cda10b94059351d7ab16c.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20050405_RL32684_d5dc4dbd251c848f1b8cda10b94059351d7ab16c.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions" ] }