Dan Quayle, Historical and Constitutional Scholar
It’s been a long time since we’ve had the opportunity to laugh at anything Dan Quayle said:
Former Vice President Dan Quayle appeared on Fox News this afternoon to chip in his two cents on the health care debate. Namely, he warned that using the reconciliation process would set a “very bad precedent” because a simple majority is just unconstitutional.
“They’re gonna go to budget reconciliation, which I believe would set a very bad precedent, because essentially — if they could do it, and I don’t know if they can do it, but if they could do it — what you have done, effectively, is to take away the filibuster in the United States Senate,” Quayle said. “So, therefore, you have 51 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. That is not the constitutional process.”
Of course, redefining “majority” in a political body of 100 to mean 60 rather than 51 for everything the Senate tries to do is not what the Framers had in mind, either. Not to mention the historical problems with a former member of a Republican administration supporting the filibuster and railing against the use of reconciliation to pass legislation:
But using reconciliation to pass health care reform would not set a precedent, “very bad” or otherwise. President George W. Bush used it regularly.The Constitution gives both houses of Congress the power to set their own rules. Although that document doesn’t mention the filibuster, the practice seems to have been around since Congress began.
Dr. Steven Taylor also corrects Quayle on his facts:
I am not going to get into Quayle, health care reform, or even reconciliation. Rather, I want to highlight the “constitutional process” part because I think that a lot of people think that what Quayle is saying above is correct.Let me be clear: he is wrong.
The filibuster process and the specific numbers needed to evoke cloture (i.e., force the end of debate in the Senate) are wholly the result of the rules of the Senate. They are not the result of constitutional strictures and are not something that can be blamed on the intentions of the Founding Fathers (if, by that, one means what they wrote in the constitution).
Now, one can argue about whether the filibuster rule is a good one or not, but one cannot assert (and be correct) that it is a constitutional principle.
The only linkage to the constitution is to note that Article I, Section 5 allows each chamber to set its own rules.
19 Responses to “Dan Quayle, Historical and Constitutional Scholar”
And to think he was at one time the President of the Senate.
Ah boyo, our politicians never cease to disappoint me.
“The only linkage to the constitution is to note that Article I, Section 5 allows each chamber to set its own rules.”
At least the critics have that right, some signal included within so much trashy noise.
This is unethical, possibly illegal, and a trick somewhat lower than a parliamentary procedural maneuver or other kind of stunt. Quayle should merely have said that, as well as questioned what was the nature of the legislation that motivated opposition to it and an unethical attempt to pass it.
At least he wouldn't have sounded like a dunderhead.
But I agree that it would be unprecedented and certainly inappropriate as it stands. However, the Senatorial rules were designed to operate in a congenital setting—in an atmosphere of cooperation and respect. However, over time, the Senate has become merely a smaller version of the historically rancorous and partisan House. In short, in a hyper-partisan Senate, the rules are in effect a recipe for completely ineffective government (notwithstanding a more authoritarian executive a la Bush 43). It's unlikely that any one party will amass more than 60 senators consistently. So, if every bill is threatened by filibuster, which is currently the modus operandi of Republican Senators and likely that of spiteful Democrats in future Congresses, then either the rules need to change or Senators need to become less partisan. As the latter will likely never happen, the former seems to be the only viable option.
“However, the Senatorial rules were designed to operate in a congenital setting—in an atmosphere of cooperation and respect. [...] in a hyper-partisan Senate, the rules are in effect a recipe for completely ineffective government”
You're right. Never mind that an “ineffective” government is good if what is sought for “effective” is bad.
The other thing is — haven't the Republicans themselves done the same thing before? That doesn't justify the Dems in the Senate doing it now, not at all (and I'd join Quayle and everyone else who says this). But it does undermine any (or all) arguments Quayle might make.
” the Senatorial rules were designed to operate in a congenital setting” congenital? I believe you mean congenial don't you? Even though I would grant you that some of the senators are congenital – congenital rouges, I mean rogues.
The Democrats need to come up with a sane health care reform package and vote the blasted thing in 51/50 if need be. The only way to break the log jam is break the log jam. Move on!
Clearly these are Senate rules, and not in the Constitution at all. Quayle appears to have shot himself in the foot on this one.
However the idea that Republicans maintain perfect party discipline including such folks as Olympia Snow is nonsense. The Democrats have opted for a highly partisan far to the left approach to legislation that barely includes all the members of their own party. Health care in the House passed by 3 (three!) votes. If you can't even get all the Democrats on board, what kind of fantasy world argues that the problem is with the Republicans? And obviously the Senate isn't much different if the loss of a single seat spells doom for legislation. If these bills were more reasonable and centrist they would be passing by 20 votes. For example, Bush got No Child Left Behind by a vote of 87-10-3.
Mr. Vice President, It is p-o-t-a-to also. What a scholar. When I think about that bloke, I still LMAO. And yet I liked ole GHWB. Go figure.
“Never mind that an “ineffective” government is good if what is sought for “effective” is bad.”
Indeed. It does work both ways. The problem is in a two party system based on adversarial politics, what constitutes good and bad will rarely be agreed upon along partisan lines. The result being a broken system.
“congenital? I believe you mean congenial”
Damnit! Yes, I meant congenial. Serves me right for typing it in MS Word. I cannot tell you how many times the auto correct function has butchered my terminology (especially when I do technical writing). C'est la vie.
“senators are congenital – congenital rouges, I mean rogues”
What do you expect when you have family dynasties in Washington?
“in a two party system based on adversarial politics”
I've long wished for a breakup of the Duopoly and 4-6+ parties (and proportional representation, as well as other goodies I've touched on again elsewhere, like vote weighting — applies to the House with state or regional representation, Electoral College and primary election reform, and so on). We'd not see and end to adversarial politics, and there'd normally still be binary votes (“present,” “abstention” are negligeable), but the coalitions and the multipolarity would be fascinating (like the Concert of Europe) as well as more effective.
I completely agree. But as it stands, we are shackled by Duvergerian principles. I'd much prefer a PR or at the very least a STV voting system—anything to crack a wedge into Fortress Washington.
“anything to crack a wedge into Fortress Washington”
I fear we'll have to wait until they're forced to set priorities and make sacrifices, say No to themselves.
Considering the current and the last President to hold office, I'd say Quayle is on a presidential level of understanding. Sad but true, been a long time since we had a President who actually knew, understood, and respected what was written by the founding fathers.
Former Vice-President Quayle knows that the U.S. House of Representatives has 435 members, so a simple majority would be 218, not 51. The way the quote reads, it sounds like the House has 100 members, like the Senate…or have I misunderstood Mr. Quayle?
I think Quayle meant 51%, wasn't ignorance on his part, just a gaffe. It happens to everyone at times, kinda like Obama and his corpseman remark, or Biden and his 3 letter word J-O-B-S” its fun for cracking jokes on, but doesn't mean they are idiots.
The actual vote tally was 220 to 215.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
With only one Republican voting YES – Cao voted as his district wanted, not his party.
What?? Who you gonna believe, DaMav or your lying eyes???
Well… shucks, ok, you're right. Thanks for the correction Rudi, and a hat tip from DaMav
five votes it is and I agree on Cao too
“either the rules need to change or Senators need to become less partisan”
I agree. The real issue here is a tactical or technical one, that the rules support the filibuster (which itself is a goofy procedural item). The rules need to be reviewed and if need be, changed. I fear that too many, who are already overreacting, will want to overreact when seeking rules changes, and that won't be a good solution, and threatens possibly to make things even worse later.
It doesn't bother me to have a supermajority requirement that is specified for certain issues or in certain circumstances (sixty per cent, 62 per cent, the value I prefer, or two-thirds, i.e., 66 3/4 per cent). The real issue that arises is determining which kinds of issues or which kinds of circumstances are such that a supermajority is better than a simple majority — that it should be required. The filibuster has a nature that is annoying, but that is a lesser issue. The real issue is to define the right way what items get a supermajority (or, if anything should). I don't trust the politicians to get this right, or the details of how this is implemented (the filibuster, currently). (I'm relieved to hear at least some Dems say that they're looking ahead to when they'll be in the minority, and that it's wrong to overreact now, putting them in a worse position someday later.)