Posted on 05/16/2005 11:48:25 AM PDT by ceoinva
I agree with your post, except for this part:
"3. While your comment that just because the Constitution requires a super majority in some matters does not mean it is forbidden in other matters has some merit..."
The Constitution clearly states which types of action require a 2/3 majority for passage. Only those issues that specifically state the requirement of a 2/3 majority are required. We don't assume a 2/3 majority for other issues where a simple majority is clearly intended, any more than we would illogically assume a 100% majority.
Yep, I'm looking at the Constitution's actual words rather than its penumbral emanations. Silly me.
Am I to understand that you believe that the framers intended for a minority of senators to frustrate the will of the majority and strip the senate of its responsibility of advise and consent? I don't think so. Your (and George Wills) argument is logical, but Mr. Will only makes the argument as a matter of GOP strategy in the event that we are in the minority.
Not too smart in my opinion. Filibustering (e.g. a rule that congress places on itself) judges is wrong; the senate parlimentry rules cannot subvert the executive arthority under art 2.
If a president does not sign a bill, what happens to it?
He can veto it, but if he does not sign it, well, it becomes law anyway right?
A vocal minority in Congress is basically saying via a filibuster "we are not signing the bill."
The same rule should apply to the congress as does the president. A minority should not be able shut down the exeuctive because they do not like his appointment choices.
That is why I distinguish between "unconstitutional" and "extra-constitutional". That is also why I think a ruling to clarify the difference between legislation (to which filibuster rules would continue to apply) and Senate confirmations (to which the filibuster process is an abuse of procedure that would be discontinued) is long overdue.
That's not what they were writing; they were, correctly, pointing out what the Constitution DOES have to say about super majorities.
For all other matters not mentioned, yes, a super majority can be required IF THE SENATE CHANGES THE RULES! This is all Frist is doing now...making a rule that for judges it's not necessary to have 60 (it used to be 67 until the Dems changed it - lead by Sheets Byrd). Seems pretty simple.
In theory, under the Constitutional clause that states that each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, the senate could adopt various quirky rules unless such rules are specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Obviously they could not change the VP tie-breaker vote to a coin flip; nor could the impose a requirement that it takes 70 votes to override a veto.
No, I wouldn't be happy with that at all, but I wouldn't call it unconstitutional.
I would call it unconstitutional.
This thread is centering around what is expressly written in the Constitution versus the intent of the Founding Fathers.
The Constitution charges the senate with the advise and consent of judicial appointments.
The senate is using the discrepancy between what is expressly written and the intent (the 2/3 majority issue) to AVOID their duty of advise and consent.
To filibuster the vote of judicial nominees is unconstitutional. If a senator does not support an appointee, he can vote No, but it is unconstitutional to block the vote, regardless of the reason.
To argue over whether it is unconstitutional to require a 2/3 vote simply because the Constitution does not state that it is prohibited, is to willingly get on our hands and knees and sniff down the trail of the RED HERRING the liberals have thrown before us with this entire issue.
GIVE THE NOMINEES A VOTE, SENATORS. UP OR DOWN. BUT GIVE THEM A VOTE SO WE CAN MOVE ON.
Oooooooh!!! Silly me! I should have known you were so much smarter and more informed I couldn't possible know anything more than you. What arrogance.
I've read the Constitution's "actual words" too .. and they say "advise and consent" not 2/3 majority.
Right. Nothing about any sort of majority at all, actually. Just "advice and consent" with no rule whatsoever regarding *how* the Senate should or must exercise the power. No rule, none. But then there's this elsewhere: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings". Tell me, how exactly is it that your unwritten rule trumps the actual text of the Constitution, text which explicitly gives the Senate the power to make its *own* rules?
"Nothing about any sort of majority at all, actually."
I thought there was a senate rule that "advise and consent" = 51 votes ..?? When did that change .. in 2003 when Daschle said it = 60.
While each house can "determine the Rules of its Proceedings" .. I don't think that means that those rules can trump the Constitution.
And .. what "unwritten rule" are you referring to ..??
Well done. In the face of adversity you have made a principled stand for the constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.