Did anyone hear Rush today, reading a history from 1889 or so, when a similar Senate rules battle took place?
I think teddy the swimmer should be challenged with harpoon gun's at 100 yards.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
Lots of history. Before 1806, Senate rules expressed, specifically, a process of moving to the vote on a simple majority. The unanimous consent rule was used rarely from then, through the 1800's, to stifle taking a vote. The first use of Senate Rules to avoid taking the vote were in the late 1830's, over censuring President Jackson for withdrawing federal deposits from the Bank of the United States. Filibuster reform was attempted in 1850, 1873 and 1883 by trying to add the pre-1806 rule. In 1890, some Senators tried to create a cloture precedent via majority vote. The cloture rule we have today (Rule XXII) didn't exist until 1917. The use of parliamentary maneuvers aiming to modify Rule XXII by a majority vote, for at least some class(es) of matters, were undertaken in 1959, 1975 and 1979.
The article also cites the significant filibusters in Senate history, but in the context of the parliamentary rules that permit a minority of Senators to stifle moving to the vote. Good article, in places tough slogging. I recommend it HIGHLY. The media and politician presentations do NOT illuminate that the nature of the battlefield is parliamentary procedure. The fact that the Senate is stepping on the president's toes, and in effect thrwarting the Constitution, is (unfortunately) merely a point of debate.
Yes, I heard Rush on 24/7 since baseball decided to interfere. I hope he reads it again because it deserves more attention. It was fascinating, and of course, I was never taught these events in public education.
Nam Vet