Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

LaRouche: Shut Down Senate If Cheney Goes Nuclearby Edward Spannaus

If Dick Cheney tries to ram through a Senate rule change to cut off a filibuster, the Democrats should shut down the Senate until the next election, Lyndon LaRouche said on May 20; LaRouche was speaking as the word went out that Cheney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist were planning to trigger the so-called "nuclear option" on May 24. This would mean that Cheney is illegally trying to change the rules of the Senate with a simple majority vote, when the Senate rules clearly require 67 votes for such a measure.

"Cheney is out of order if he doesn't have 67 votes," LaRouche said. "That's the end of the procedure. Shut down the Senate at that point."

LaRouche said that an effort to change the rules, without the 67 votes, would be a coup d'état. "They've violated the Constitution, and you cannot continue business in the Senate as long as they're doing that." In the extreme case, the issue must be referred to the outcome of the next general election.Triggering the Nuclear Option

The fuse for the Cheney-Frist nuclear option was lit on May 18, when Frist brought to the floor, two of the most controversial Bush judicial nominations, Priscilla Owen of Texas, and Janice Rogers Brown of California.

As the debate opened, many Senators noted that what distinguishes the Senate from the House of Representatives, is that the Senate protects the rights of the minority, whereas the House is a majoritarian body. That the Framers of the Constitution gave the Senate, and not both houses, the responsibility of "Advice and Consent" on Presidential nominations, indicates that the Framers wanted the minority's voice to be heard. Throughout the entire history of the Senate, one of the means by which the right of the minority has been protected, has been the right of extended debate, popularly known as the filibuster.

In his opening statement, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid declared that "the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House," adding that, "in these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."

"Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats' ability to voice their concern in this body, the Senate," Reid continued. "If Republicans roll back our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want, and not just in judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the President's nominees in general, and legislation such as Social Security privatization."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, put it this way: "The Senate was intended to keep the Executive from acting like a king." Leahy labelled the moves by the White House and Republican leadership as "an abuse of power to advance a power grab," and he charged that this is not an isolated incident: "It is part of a sustained effort by this Administration and partisan operatives in Congress, to consolidate power in one branch, the Executive branch, and ignore our Constitutional history of three separate branches acting as checks and balances on each other."

At a Democratic press conference the same day, Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.), got it right, when he charged that efforts to assert absolute control over all branches of the Federal government constitute an effort "to transform our democracy ... into essentially a dictatorship."Dictatorial Rule

LaRouche has warned, from the beginning of this Administration, that under conditions of financial crisis, we would see the Adminstration moving toward dictatorial, emergency rule. We saw the police-state measures—dragnets and roundups—that followed 9/11, and the stampeding of a frightened Congress into passage of the Patriot Act.

We have seen the repeated assertions that the President can ignore Congress and U.S. treaty obligations, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Federal Anti-Torture Act, when he is acting in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief in war-time. It is well known, that Dick Cheney and his legal counsel David Addington have been the chief promoters of this doctrine within the Administration.

The issue in the current Senate fight is not the particular appellate court nominees—as undesirable as they might be. Nor is it even the larger issue of the anticipated vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, one or more, that will likely emerge at the conclusion of the present term this Summer. The issue is an overall fascist assault on the U.S. Constitution. The fact that the appellate court nominees who are chosen by the Administration in the showdown are all avowed fascists, who are dedicated to the dismantling of the entire New Deal legacy of FDR, is but an indication of the larger issue at stake.

On May 19, Frist announced that he would file a motion to cut off debate—known as a "cloture" motion—on May 20, and that the cloture vote would be set for May 24. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to cut off debate. But the presiding officer, who would probably be Vice President Cheney, is expected to "rule," pushing the Senate Parliamentarian aside, that the 60-vote requirement is "unconstitutional" with respect to judicial nominees. At that point, as many Democrats have pointed out, Cheney has to break the rules to ram through the rule-change, since a rule-change motion is itself subject to filibuster, and requires two-thirds, or 67 votes, to cut it off.

If Cheney tries to bypass the 67-vote rule, the coup is on, and Senate Democrats and honest Republicans must act accordingly.

For background on the "nuclear option," see , May 6 and May 20, 2005. Contact the author at edspannaus@larouchepub.com.