Posted on 01/20/2018 1:03:00 PM PST by WilliamIII
Ann Coulter says it's unconstitutional to require supermajority for budget. Is she right?
Check her Twitter account
Invoke the Reid Rule: The Senate rules can be changed at any time by a simple majority of the Senators present and voting.
...and the BEST PART is that Trump likely has a history of giving money to Shumer (in his NYC past) - if so, it was BRILLIANT.
Funny, I recently saw Daniel Pena (on YouTube) apply the same test for absurdity to Global Warming. He told a whining woman in a Q&A that if even the conservative alarmist projection of sea rise was true, how is it that construction is BOOMING all across the Florida coastline?
Simple, none of those investors actually BELIEVE global warming alarmism. They aren’t in to throwing money away, either.
People with something to gain via hyperbolic alarmism are the ones who traffic in its manipulations. It’s all about what THEY want, not truth.
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.
Where is McCain?
Has he been rolled into DC to do his job as a Senator?
We need that vote.
A supermajority is required by the Constitution for certain specific actions. For all other actions, the Senate and House rules decide whether a simple or supermajority is required. Senate and House rules can be changed by the Senate and House, respectively.
Ann is right
I think there were four GOP that didn’t vote for it but five Dems that did. That should have been enough with a majority vote shouldn’t it?
“He needs 60 votes to end the filibuster.”
But that’s only because he chooses not to change a Senate RULE. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about the operational rules of either house of the Congress. I think Bitch is deluded that if he changes things and then at some time in the future the RATs retake the Senate, that the minority party will have absolutely no leverage. The folly there is that you can be sure as $hit that Schmucky Chucky will change that same rule in a heartbeat if it suits him and the RAT Party.
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.
It’s unconstitutional in any definition. 60 votes is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Not unconstitutional - extra-constitutional - not defined in the document, but clearly an implied power of the bodies.
Simply put, though, 60 votes is not mentioned in the Constitution. Supermajorities are specified for Amendments and Impeachment, not for the ordinary passing of bills.
They could need unanimity as far as their powers are concerned. Wisdom may point elsewhere.
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.
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.