Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
I think you have to define "rules". Certainly any rule which violates the constitution can never be a valid rule.

So does rules mean time, place, etc...in other words, what we consider as Robert's Rules or does rules mean that theoretically, next year, they can change advise and consent to a 3/4 majority vote.

9 posted on 05/17/2005 11:13:35 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Sacajaweau
I think you have to define "rules".

The 43 standing rules of the U.S. Senate.

Certainly any rule which violates the constitution can never be a valid rule.

True, but the Constitution allows the House and Senate to set their own rules and the filibuster does not strictly violate the Constitution because it does not change the simple majority required to confirm a candidate once that candidate comes up for approval. If you say that the filibuser is unconstitutional because it requires 60 votes to override it then you must also say that allowing the Chairman of a Senate Committee to keep a nominee from appearing before that committes is unconstitutional because one senator can prevent the entire Senate from giving the nominee an up or down vote.

10 posted on 05/17/2005 11:29:42 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson