|
The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by majority vote. The presiding officer of the United States Senate rules that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. They immediately put the issue to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, even though the rules of the Senate specify that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, 67 for amending a Senate rule. The name is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare. In 1917, a threat to use what is now known as the nuclear option resulted in reform of the Senate's filibuster rules. An opinion written by Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957 concluded that the U.S. Constitution grants the presiding officer the authority to override Senate rules.〔Betsy Palmer, (''Changing Senate Rules: The “Constitutional” or “Nuclear” Option'' ), Congressional Research Service report no. RL32684, updated April 5, 2005, page CRS-4.〕 The option was used to make further rule changes in 1975.〔Gold, Martin B.; Gupta, Dimple (Fall 2004). "(''The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Over Come the Filibuster'' )" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. p. 236, pp. 258-60. The option was endorsed on February 20, 1975 and on February 24, 1975.〕 In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court. Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate〔Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XXII - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved on 2013-11-21.〕 – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting"〔 – 67 or fewer votes) for a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a ''de facto'' requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations. In most proposed variations of the nuclear option, the presiding officer would rule that a simple majority vote is sufficient to end debate. If the ruling is challenged, a majority would be required to overturn it. If the ruling is upheld, it becomes a precedent. This would end what had effectively become a 60-vote requirement for confirmation of an executive or judicial nominee, or the passage of legislation. ==Background== The metaphor of a nuclear strike refers to the majority party unilaterally imposing a change to the filibuster rule, which might provoke retaliation by the minority party. The alternative term "constitutional option" is often used with particular regard to confirmation of executive and judicial nominations, on the rationale that the United States Constitution requires these nominations to receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Proponents of this term argue that the Constitution implies that the Senate can act by a majority vote unless the Constitution itself requires a supermajority, as it does for certain measures such as the ratification of treaties.〔 By effectively requiring a supermajority of the Senate to fulfill this function, proponents believe that the current Senate practice prevents the body from exercising its constitutional mandate, and that the remedy is therefore the "constitutional option." The history of the "nuclear" option, though not the name, has been traced to an opinion written by then-Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957, while he held the title President of the Senate. Nixon's opinion stated that the Constitution grants the presiding officer of the Senate the authority to override Senate rules by making a ruling that is then upheld by a majority vote.〔 Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) first used the term "nuclear option" for this maneuver in March 2003. A series of votes in 1975 have been cited as a precedent for the nuclear option, although some of these were reconsidered shortly thereafter. The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances. The nuclear option was raised again following the congressional elections of 2012, this time with Senate Democrats in the majority (but short of a supermajority). The Democrats have been the majority party in the Senate since 2007 but only briefly did they have the 60 votes necessary to halt a filibuster. ''The Hill'' reported that Democrats would "likely" use the nuclear option in January 2013 to effect filibuster reform, but the two parties managed to negotiate two packages of amendments to the Rules concerning filibusters that passed on January 24, 2013, by votes of 78 to 16 and 86 to 9, thus avoiding the need for the nuclear option. In July 2013, the Senate Democratic majority came within hours of using the nuclear option to win confirmation of seven of President Obama's long-delayed executive branch appointments. The ability of the minority party to filibuster appointments was preserved by a last-minute deal in which the White House withdrew two of the nominations in exchange for the other five being brought to the floor for a vote, where they were confirmed. On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the "nuclear option" to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required. A 3/5 supermajority is still required to end filibusters unrelated to those nominees.〔Ryan Grim; Michael McAuliff (2013-11-21). ("Senate Votes For Nuclear Option" ). ''Huffingtonpost.com''. Retrieved 2013-11-21.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「nuclear option」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|