• 1788, The Constitution does not address either filibuster or cloture.
• 1806, It was acknowledged that no rule existed to stop unlimited debate.
• 1830s, Filibuster was used for the first time.
• 1917, Democrats introduced a 2/3 of all of Senate cloture rule.  (nothing to do with the constitution other than that the majority can change the rules.)  Senator Thomas Walsh (D) first advocated the use of the constitutional option.  Minority agrees to cloture rule change under threat of the majority to use the constitutional option.
• Somewhere in this time frame, Liberals began to realize that they could change the U.S. Constitution and the laws simply by appointing Federal Judges who were willing to re-write the law and the constitution from the bench.  Conservatives were very slow to catch on.
• 1959, Cloture modified: 2/3 of all present rather than all of Senate.  Minority agrees to cloture rule change under threat of the majority to use the constitutional option. (nothing to do with the constitution other than that the majority can change the rules.)
• 1975, Minority agrees to cloture rule change under threat of the majority to use the constitutional option.
• 1979, Democrats (Robert Byrd) raised the possibility that the U.S. Constitution allows the majority to override the Senate's cloture rule.  The Democrats wanted to change the rules and, though they didn't have to, could have changed the rules by overriding the cloture rule.  Minority agrees to cloture rule change under threat of the majority to use the constitutional option.  This option has been endorsed by 3 U.S. Vice Presidents and 3 times by the Senate itself.
• 2001, Democrats begin to use the filibuster to prevent the President's judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote. (This does thwart the majority rules idea as long as the Republicans abdicate and don't do anything about it.)

 The constitutional option, or as some call it, the nuclear option, is about democracy.  The majority rules.  Some debate whether that is a good form of Government, but, until God establishes His Kingdom, it seems to be the least abusive.  The constitutional option is about applying the Constitution as the Constitution was written.  The Republicans had a right to exercise it, and, although they showed weak leadership, and failed exercise it.  The Democrats and the liberal media had a perfect right to howl long and hard and to try to sway public opinion.  That's America, just a temporary government.  Thy Kingdom come, Lord Jesus.

Quote:

"The recent use of filibuster to prevent the President's judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote in the full Senate is, if not unprecedented, at least very rare and a recent phenomenon. Save for the large number now being filibustered by Senate Democrats, the only previous use was during the confirmation of Abe Fortas for promotion from a Supreme Court justice to chief justice. In 1968, Republicans were concerned about the ascension of a liberal justice following the expansive rulings of the previous Warren Court. However, the Abe Fortas case was atypical since it was revealed in hearings that Fortas kept President Lyndon Johnson informed of the secret deliberations of the Court and had accepted what seemed to be excessive and inappropriate private payments for teaching a summer course at American University. This is hardly the precedent, Democrats should base their current opposition to nominees for whom the only objection is one of political philosophy."

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_conservative/115359

Quote:

"Byrd made clear that if his rules-change proposal were filibustered, he would invoke the Senate's powers under the U.S. Constitution to force a vote.  Byrd never carried out his threat to use the "constitutional option."  He never had to.  His threat to use it was enough to break the opposition and secure a vote on his rules-change proposal.

Byrd has not been alone, either in his views or his tactics.  The constitutional option has been endorsed, explicitly or implicitly, by three U.S. Vice Presidents and three times, by the Senate itself.  Moreover, on three occasions prior to 1979, a majority had used the threat of the constitutional option to force a formal change to the Senate Standing Rules."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf