[Congressman Billybob]

Neither I nor anyone else including the Supreme Court has dealt in any "penumbras" of the Advise and Consent Clause, which indludes the 2/3rds requirement for treaty ratification only. You might want to look at the SC case of (Senator) Goldwater v. (President) Carter and concerned the abrogation of the Panama Canal treaties.

That case hinged in part on the difference between a 2/3rds vote for treaties and a simple majority for other Senate decisions.

To prove the point that a Senate Rule cannot trump the Constitution itself, consider this: Senate Rule says, "No votes by women who happen to be Senators will be counted toward passing any legislation." Do you have the slightest doubt in such an instance that the Constitution governs, and the Rule would fall?

John / Billybob

[Jim Noble]

To prove the point that a Senate Rule cannot trump the Constitution itself, consider this: Senate Rule says, "No votes by women who happen to be Senators will be counted toward passing any legislation."

The Senate could refuse to seat females, being the sole judge of the qualifications of its members.

However, they would all be replaced at the next election.

The People are the check on the rules of the Senate.

[ScorpiusInvincitatus]

"Penumbras and emanations" you can attribute to William O. Douglas of the Supreme Court. Constitutional? Not by a long shot. "Legal psycho-babble"? Yep. Typical liberal b.s., but I'm sure you were already aware of that.

Scorp