Make the lazy ‘Rats actually perform a real filibuster.
They are following a stupid congressional “rule” which would be easy to change. But I think it’s a stretch to call it unconstitutional.
The senate can make its own rules. At least they think they can.
He doesn’t. He is scum incorporated.
He only needs a majority to pass a budget. He needs 60 votes to end the filibuster.
I would bring back to real filibuster.
If you want to block a bill you must stand up and take the Senate floor and keep talking to prevent a vote where majority wins.
This 60 votes for every bill in lieu of a real filibuster is CACA.
Constitution declares that each house (Senate, House) make their own rules.
The Senate, which is supposed to be the ‘cooling saucer’ to slow legislation down, has rules that prevent the majority from overwhelming the minority.
For many years from the beginning - a filibuster required ‘holding the Senate by continuing to talk.’ Around 1940’s/1950’s - Senate changed the rule to no longer require ‘holding the floor by continuing to talk’ - and to stop ‘debate’ and allow the issue to proceed to vote - it requires 60 votes to end debate.
If the 60 vote threshold is eliminated - the next time we see the House, Senate and Presidency controlled by Democrats - we will get ‘rolled’ even worse than ever.
The REAL problem is the 1974 Budget Reconciliation Act that changed the way budgets are passed....and yet - Congress DOES NOT follow the rules.
Legally (but there is no punishment for violation) - the Budget should be passed before the start of the new fiscal year (October 01). AND -the budget is actually a series of budget laws for each department. It was not the intent to pass a single budget with all departments in one jammed up omnibus spending - but that is how it is done as a ‘let’s lard up the social spending in some departments and put it with essential military spending’ - and dare the Republicans to veto/block needed military spending.
HERE IS WHAT WE NEED...a new law:
“If a new fiscal year starts without a budget in place - each department will be allowed to continue operation at 90% of the prior year’s appropriation, and will continue until a new budget is passed OR until the end of the fiscal year.”
This way - instead of Democrats saying - government shutdown or give us bloated spending...it would be the Republicans allowing the budget to be blocked - and we get a 10% cut. Sounds like a winner.
Reference or link?
Invoke the Reid Rule: The Senate rules can be changed at any time by a simple majority of the Senators present and voting.
Actually McConnell is likely glad for the filibuster given the likelihood two of his own would vote nay on the spending bill without DACA. Collins and Flake. Now he has cover and lives in the hope Trump can get a deal with Schumer and bail McConnell out.
Ann is right
There is one shutdown question mark that goes against the swamp RINOs running the Senate imo. Please consider the following.
Although there are exceptions to the Constitution’s Article V equal suffrage clause for the Senate, a 2/3 supermajority Senate vote needed to override a presidential veto (1.7.2) for example, the 60 supermajority Senate vote “required” to pass the federal funding bill seems to deny equal Senate suffrage for the states.
Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate [emphasis added].
So are Senate swamp RINOs possibly hiding behind an unconstitutional Senate voting procedure to take a political shot at Pres. Trump?
Corrections, insights welcome.
Patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting, state sovereignty-respecting patriot candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day.
And until the states wake up and repeal the 17th Amendment, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of Alabama's special Senate election, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics.
Hacking Democracy - The Hack
The used a budget reconciliation maneuver to pass Osamacare and to end debate on Justice Gorsuch, but they have to have the supermajority to pass a budget. The govt is too obtuse to allow to continue in this form.
Rolling eyes... You mean anybody cares about anything other than Calvinball?
That’s why the big kerfuffle. The Calvinball is in danger. A legal Dream Act would hurt less than a constant Calvinball.
No.
This should provide the needed excuse to nuke all the remaining “60 vote cloture” rules.
McConnell should have invoked the Nuclear Option, unless he knew he didn't have enough votes for that. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
My suspicion is that it gives them an out on why they do not pass legislation that is good for the nation but bad for the swamp. We have known it for a long time, but at long last, we have a champion in the White House and light is shining on the truth.
The comment is on Coulter’s twitter.
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
I don’t know if using the word unconstitutional is correct but my recollection is that other CR’s were passed with 51 votes.
This looks like RINO theater. McConnell can orchestrate this how he chooses. I suspect he’s up to something nefarious.
About 200 and 30 years ago. Cloture has been part of parliamentary rules for a long time.