Filibuster

As a filibuster (be [' fɪlɪbʌstə ], ae [' fɪlɪbʌstə ʴ ] ) the tactics of a minority is referred to in the Senate of the United States to prevent permanent speeches by a decision by the majority or delay. This is behind the scenes usually at the same time trying to convince people with individual senators of the majority party challenging the decision. The filibuster is not a new phenomenon, but goes back to the Roman tradition of fatigue speech.

In the German speaking part of the generalized concept of Filibusterei has seeped which designates those grueling voting tactics. In the English-speaking world there is this generalization ( " filibustering "). Almost all democratic systems have historically a form of Filibusterei, even if the time is limited in Parliament, such as motions to the agenda, requests for clarification of specific points and use of extended breaks.

• 2.1 rules and practices
• 2.2 Longest Speeches
• 2.3 filibuster - proof majority
• 2.4 filibuster in other legislative bodies in the United States

• 3.1 Germany
• 3.2 France
• 3.3 Japan
• 3.4 Canada
• 3.5 Austria
• 3.6 United Kingdom
• 3.7 Australia

Conceptualization

The term was adopted by the Spanish filibustero, which term is derived from the French flibustier, which in turn derives from a distorted pronunciation of the Dutch vrijbuiter ( privateer) - meant originally the pirates that between about 1680 and 1800, the Caribbean between Cuba and Nicaragua made ​​uncertain.

Made film history is the marathon speech that James Stewart as Senator ( successfully ) in the feature film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington " from 1939 holds.

Background

Time is a scarce resource in decision-making bodies. Through a long discussion not only the current project is blocked, but also all subsequent points an agenda can no longer be put to the vote. The Filibusterei is an effective means by which a significant minority in a parliament can determine the fate of the law finding a whole. The possible delays are indeed ultimately limited, the terms of office of the decision support but also.

The average of the Filibusterei is not an invention of the United States. In ancient Rome there were marathon speeches, then Julius Caesar complained in his book De Bello Civili about the fact that his arch enemy Cato talking all day in the Senate. In the House of Representatives of the Austrian Imperial Council was called the tactic " obstruction " and was the beginning of the 20th century, so often applied that ultimately suffered from the reputation of the entire Parliament.

Filibuster in the U.S. Senate

Possible this tactic the marathon speech is by the very liberal in comparison to the House Rules of the Senate: The Senators have the right to speak as long as they want, without this must have to do with the issue under debate topic. An exception is made in the reconciliation process, which was introduced in order to prevent certain legislative process filibuster.

Rules and practices

After it had been until 1917 no rules which limit the speaking time of the senators, a debate of three-fifths of the senators may be ( ie normally 60 ) canceled today. However, such a vote on closing the debate needs two conference days will be requested in advance and allowed in case of success for another 30 hours of debate ( which was much higher than the debate about most decisions in total takes ) so that win with a filibuster still a lot of time leaves.

From 1917 to 1949, the rule was that the debate of two-thirds of the voting senators can be closed. Then it was up to 1959 exacerbated the fact that only two thirds of all senators could decide. Then there was a return to the previous control. In 1975, the current system has been introduced.

An amendment to the Rules of the Senate, including the provision on the debate circuit could theoretically be decided by a simple majority of 51 votes. However, the change of rules would themselves subject to unlimited debate, and the debate circuit (ie, 67 when all are present ) would in this case even the votes of two- thirds of the senators present is required. Such rules change is currently not seriously discussed. Apart from the fact that both parties have drawn at different times benefit from the filibuster, which it permitting unlimited debate right is understood as the essence of the Senate in accordance with, the one opposite the House of Representatives more considered in the system of checks- and- balances and should be moderating chamber. It is therefore accepted that the Senate is working slowly, and saw the Filibusterei as a typical manifestation of its conformity with the constitution task.

The Senate is a continuous body, ie, it has no legislative periods, at the end it dissolves and a new Senate is elected. Instead, every two years a third of the senators are elected, but never the whole Senate. Since there is never a new Senate, he did not adopt the internal rules as the House of Representatives or in the German Parliament after each election and again. Instead, it remains permanently in place. Several majority leader interpreted the authorization contained in the Constitution of the Senate to regulate its Rules of Procedure, to the effect that it was unconstitutional to bind future generations Senate because of the forced two-thirds majority for a change in the Rules of Procedure. Hence the as the "Nuclear Option " or of followers sometimes called " Constitutional option " designated opportunity: A (not debattierfähiger ) point of order may find that the incumbent President of the Senate ( in such an important debate that would be the Vice President of the United States), despite the conflicting provision of the Rules of Procedure was constitutionally obligated to give the majority the opportunity to vote. Then, a filibuster could be ended by a simple majority. This procedure was applied only in 2013 ( see below). The threat has hitherto repeatedly played a political role to enforce, among other things in 1917 with the introduction of the possibility of a three- fifths majority, a debate end. 2005 the Republicans threatened to end a democratic filibuster against the confirmation of President Bush's proposed five judges in this way. This did not happen eventually, as a compromise was negotiated. After seven Democrats voted for three of the five judges for the debate concluded, in return undertook seven Republicans, with the other two judges against one end of the Filibuster by this " nuclear option " that is, to vote an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. The Republicans opposed the so foreseeable futile debate about the other two judges no longer on the agenda.

On November 21, 2013 was finally the " nuclear option " still exercise: The Republican minority in the Senate prevented by Filibusterei the confirmation of the appointment of 59 persons for positions in the federal administration, as well as 17 people for judgeships in federal courts. Republican officials had declared their intention to so literally " refuse any further appointment for appellate courts of the Federation" the incumbent President Obama. Therefore, the need for 60 votes was abolished for ending the debate on the nomination of persons for positions in the federal government and federal courts with 52 to 48 votes. Three Democratic senators voted against the amendment. Except for appointments to the Supreme Court, continue to apply the old rules for the.

Since the Senate can not address other issues effectively during a Filibuster and a filibuster tired both parties are questions on which threaten at least 41 senators with a filibuster, mostly not even put into practice on the agenda. Such so-called procedural filibuster part of everyday business; that the majority enforces the actual filibuster, however, is very rare.

Longest speeches

The longest single speech with a total length of 24 hours and 18 minutes gave Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina on 28 and 29 August 1957 to prevent the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which should facilitate the perception of African-Americans the right to vote. After remarks to the point he cited, among other things, the Declaration of Independence of the United States, the Bill of Rights and the election laws of all states. Also on cake recipes of his grandmother, he gave a lecture in the context of this speech. Thurmond had announced and prepared his filibuster. He had previously been in a sauna to during the speech not to have to go to the toilet. If this would happen but, standing in the next room, an employee with a bucket ready, so the Senator 's necessities could do while he was still there with one leg in the Senate. The Senate colleagues had adjusted to the long speech and brought blankets. At the end of his speech, his speech was slurred and monotonous. The New York Times wrote that the laws cited passages " as well from the phone book " could have been. Overall, the consultations for the law lasted 57 days in which the Senate could take no other decisions. Thurmond's application was ultimately in vain, since shortly after his speech, the law was passed, but his supporters cheered him. Thurmond acquired, inter alia, to by this speech, but also by its extremely long Senate membership of nearly 50 years, the reputation of a legend.

The record before Thurmond kept Wayne Morse with a 22 - hour speech on 24 and 25 April 1953. Well of the 15 -hour filibuster became famous in the 12th and 13th June 1935 by Huey Pierce Long, in which he, among others, its recipes for fried oysters manifested. Robert Byrd held a 14 - hour speech against the Civil Rights Act on 9 and 10 June 1964. The first long filibuster since the introduction of live broadcasts from the Senate held Alfonse D' Amato on 5 October 1992 with over 15 hours speech and singing, to prevent the departure of a typewriter factory from his home state of New York.

Filibuster - proof majority

A majority of three-fifths of the Senators ( ie currently 60), a so-called super Majority ("super - majority" ) can stop a filibuster. Such a distinct majority is seldom fulfilled in practice; and even with a formal majority party discipline is not as strong.

An exception to the three-fifths majority was introduced in November 2013. Since that time can be stopped even by a simple majority in debates over nominations to the President for federal officials and judges, but not in nominations to the Supreme Court. In all other areas, but keep the old rules exist.

With the introduction of the rule in 1975, there was a filibuster - proof majority. The 94th Congress, which met on January 3, 1975, had a Democratic majority of 60 seats ( later she was temporarily even 61 seats). The following 95th Congress, who served from 1977 to 1979, as there was a majority of 61 seats in the November 8, 1978 was reduced to 60 seats after the election of David Durenberger. The majority went on 30 December 1978, the appointment of Thad Cochran lost.

Only in 2009 there was again a short time such a majority, again for Democrats, while nonetheless also the independent Senators Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders included.

Of 7 July 2009 to 25 August 2009, it was achieved after Al Franken was sworn, who had won the election on 4 November 2008 by a margin of only 312 votes against his opponent Norm Coleman, but only after several recounts and a long legal battle on 30 June 2009 victory by the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota was awarded. Before that, Arlen Specter had changed the party after 44 years as a Republican. Lost this majority on 25 August 2009 by the death of Ted Kennedy.

Of 24 September 2009 to 4 February 2010, the majority once again insisted after Paul G. Kirk was named to succeed Kennedy. However, he did not present himself for election, and the Democratic candidate Martha Coakley defeated her Republican competitor Scott Brown. With the swearing-in on 4 February 2010 ended this second brief period of a filibuster - proof majority.

Filibuster in other legislative bodies in the United States

The U.S. Senate is not the only legislative body in the United States that knows a filibuster. The House of Representatives knew this tool earlier also, but managed from 1842. Due to the higher number of members authorizing the filibuster would be a problem in practice.

At the level of states, there are also occasional filibuster. However ban 36 of the respective State Senate a filibuster explicitly, and while it is possible in 13 states, it is only in Alabama, Nebraska, South Carolina and Texas before regularly. In the latter state it is subject to strict rules: the speaker must consistently speak on the topic and are available during the whole speech, without leaning or support. After three violations of the speech is ended. Nevertheless, it is several times managed to delay this way proposed legislation crucial by certain deadlines for the successful conclusion of a law that was passed by the filibuster.

Other States

Germany

In Germany the use of the Filibuster is unusual. In the German Bundestag, the speaking time for an MP is usually limited to 15 minutes. The fractions also share the speech quotas for a specific key, the so-called "Berlin hour." In the 16th legislature were given every 7 minutes of speaking time in an average hour debate of the CDU / CSU and the SPD every 19 minutes of the FDP 8 minutes and Alliance 90/The Greens and the Left. Through these schemes, a filibuster is not possible. To delay a vote there is only the way to have the quorum of the Bundestag. Since large parts of the deputies are not present in the Chamber in many parliamentary sessions, such a review would often revealed that the number of those present is not sufficient to take decisions. Pending decisions would have to be postponed. In such a case, would the government coalitions call on all MPs in order to achieve a quorum and to bring about the majority 's decision. This is rarely used.

In the Bundesrat, there is usually no time limit for speakers, but again is not filibuster usual.

Historically, this tactic was in Germany but quite apply. In 1900 the Social Democrats in the Reichstag took the average of the " obstruction ", which is also acted to filibuster. The reason for this was that the Social Democrats had indeed received 27 % of the votes, but because of the rough various constituency sizes only 14% of the seats. They therefore wanted to use all parliamentary means to prevent rapid decisions by the conservative majority. The longest speech was delivered while the cigarette manufacturer and SPD deputy Otto Friedrich Antrick who came on 13 December 1902 Reichstag on an eight-hour talk time. His topic was actually the Customs Tariff Act, but basically it came to postpone a vote on the increase in import duties on grain. He went there before so that he went through each item individually and then talked for half an hour about the importance of the fact Mentioned for the German economy. He failed so however. The law came at five clock to the vote, and his party was defeated. Twenty years after this incident was introduced by the end of December 1922 speech time limit of one hour.

France

In France, the form of massive business applications is used primarily. Here, the opposition speculates that the President makes a replacement decision in accordance with Article 49-3 of the Constitution, on the grounds of lack of quorum of the Parliament. However, this unhinging of the parliamentary rights is extremely unpopular and is strictly rejected and pro-government - the president would thus itself publicly discredited.

Notable Records are here with 13,000 applications to the UDF to European regionalization reforms in February 2003, shortly thereafter in June 2003 exceeded by 137 537 applications of the Communist faction and the Socialist Party on the merger of GDF- Suez - this surpasses alone of all normal rules of procedure points of throughout the year three times.

Japan

Extended coordination processes one likes to call the slow transition, which often specifically refers to delays in the voting process. In Japan there is it a particularly theatrical version, in which the members can be individually call for a ballot to be then particularly slow to rise and move in small steps pointedly toward the ballot box. While the ruling party has submitted their votes within 15 minutes the opposition needs this, almost 1 ½ hours. This behavior has " put the car Kuhgang " in Japanese parlance the name get (牛 歩, ushi Aruki or gyūho ).

Canada

A special form of Filibusterei was used in April 1997 by the Ontario New Democratic Party ( social democratic party) in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This was against a law of the ruling Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, which was to create a megacity Toronto. The NDP Group generated using a computer 11,500 modification by a public hearing was called to every street of the new town in which the citizens of the respective road should be involved. The Ontario Liberal Party participated in the Filibusterei with a slightly smaller number of cases in which it came to the historical reference of the designated road.

The filibuster began on April 2, with the Abbeywood Trail ( forest path Abbey ) and employed the Parliament day and night, with the members alternated in layers. On April 4, came through the fatigue of the deputies even an NDP request unintentionally, and the few dozen residents of Cafon Court ( Cafonhof ) in Etobicoke were given the right to a public survey on the proposed legislation, but this was by a subsequent amendment of the Government again exposed. Going on 6 April when they had arrived in the alphabetical list in the streets starting with E, given the Speaker Chris Stockwell that the 230 identical words of each application should not be read aloud, but only the street name called. Still had to be matched to each application, and it took until April 8 to reach the last to Zorra Street ( Zorrastraße ). Subsequently, the applications of the Liberals were a rejected after the other, and a similar, abbreviated process was applied. The filibuster ended on April 11.

Austria

While the Filibustern is understood in the Anglo-Saxon parliaments as a legitimate means of parliamentarism, there were such cases of obstruction in the Austrian parliament ( 1867-1918 ) due to an inappropriate order. Here not only the speaking time was unqualified, but this has not translated from and into all languages ​​of the empire, so that long and important speeches remained untranslated. On top of that were allowed to make noise even after the free decision of parliament, when a colleague said ( rattles, ratchets, toy trumpets, singing of songs, for example, national anthems etc.). Thus, the freely elected parliaments (including the diets so ) were immobile and put parliamentarianism in a bad light. Hitler impressions of parliamentary work about come from the Vienna Imperial Council. About the supply and grievances was then reported in the world press, for example, when the Czech- radical Lisy talked alone with Bureau and stenographers, now and then took a bite of his sausage sandwich and drank a cognac. Earlier, the Bohemian Diet was paralyzed from the German national by obstruction, which led mainly by radical Czechs in turn hinder the Imperial Council.

In the recent history of Austria mainly the Greens tended to Filibustern, most famously, the experiment was starting on 11 March 1993 to be prevented by continuous speeches on the subject of the abolition of the jute mandatory labeling of tropical timber. Overall, the meeting lasted about 38 hours. With 10 hours and 35 minutes on 11 and 12 March Madeleine Petrovic held for 17 years the record for the longest speech in the National Council. As a sequel Rules of Procedure in 1996 then decided the limited speaking time in plenary sessions to 20 minutes. This prevented the deputies Werner Kogler but no doubt, this delay considerably by a permanent speech during the debate in the Budget Committee, which in 2011 preceded the decision of the budget on 16 and 17 December 2010. The talk began at 13:18 clock and lasted 12 hours and 42 minutes until exactly 2:00 clock at night, and thus set a new record dar.

United Kingdom

In the UK, a successful zerredetes proposed legislation is called Talked out ( away spoken, done speaking ) refers.

In the British House of Commons should make a speech, as long as they stay on topic, any go into the details. The record for a continuous speech is six hours at Henry Brougham, held 1828th John Golding gave a speech in 1983, including several breaks, from a total of 11 hours to the topic of the reform of British Telecom. The longest uninterrupted speech in the last century was held by Sir Ivan Lawrence, who gave a speech of four hours 32 minutes to Fluoridierungs regulation.

A special note of this process is clearly in a speech by Andrew Dismore ( Labour ) - it lasted three hours 17 minutes. In his speech to change the protection of property crime in the law, he accepted multiple objections from the parliamentary bloc to which he entered in each case very carefully, then proceed with her ​​own speech. Using this tactic actually a limited topic becomes considerably in the length.

Australia

In Australia, both the House of Representatives as well as the Senate have adopted comprehensive rules on speaking time, so that a filibuster is not currently possible.