[Sgt_Schultze]

Thanks for keeping the attention focused on this important issue. I think the moniker "Nuclear Option" refers more to the presumed tantrum that would erupt than to the interpretation of the rule. But beyond that, it's sheer folly to think that this rule is actually an impediment that needs to be dealt with in the parlimentary manner described.

You referred to the portion of the Constitution which empowers each Congress with the authority to develop its own rules of procedure. Both the House and Senate reform every two years. Each new Congress is entitled to develop its own rules of procedure, notwithstanding any existing rule. If the new Congress could be held to account for a previous Congress rule, that would impute an additional element of power on the past Congress.

We know however, that each Congress has equally as much authority as any which preceeded it. What if a previous Congress had propagated a rule requiring that only members shorter than 5 feet could serve as a committee chair? The newer Congress would be wholly within its right to eliminate or modify that rule as it saw fit. The same holds with the filibuster rule. The Senate could disallow the use of the filibuster on judicial appointments when it determines its new rules. Any requirement that impels a super-majority to amend the rules can be ignored, as each Congress is entitled to decide for itself, its own rules of procedure.

[Congressman Billybob]

You raise a different but related point. One of the Senate Rules specifies that the Rules remain in effect in new Sessions of Congress, unless voted down by 2/3rds of all new Senators, come January.

This is an example, per Jefferson, of "one legislature seeking to bind the next legislature." The nuclear option could be used on this as well. But that's a separate story.

Billybob

[dvwjr]

Excellent points by both of you.

I agree about the ruling from the chair about the applicability of the filibuster to judicial nominations. However, I am more interested in the US Senate acknowledging that it has to power to throw off any previous 'rules' from another Senate. I have heard that some parliamentarians in the US Senate hold the view that the Senate is a 'continuing body', unlike the House of Representatives. They use this theory that only one-third of the members are 'new' every two years, so that previously adopted rules are still in force. Interesting concept, which does not explain why the Senate will adopt its 'rules' at the beginning of every session... If the carryover concept held true, then no re-adoption would be necessary.

Shucks, how do folks think the Democrats went from requiring 67 votes for cloture to 60 votes - at a time when they did NOT control the 67 votes for cloture to amend the Senate rules. Change the damn filibuster rule XXII BEFORE it is ADOPTED at the begining of the two year session so that it only takes successive cloture votes requiring a diminishing number of votes as some Senators have proposed, say on the first cloture motion 60 votes required, the second cloture attempt 57 votes required, on the third cloture attempt 53 votes required, finally on the last only a simple majority of 51 votes required...


dvwjr